Mobile App to Help People With Chronic Illness Reflect on Their Strengths: Formative Evaluation and Usability Testing.

BACKGROUND: Supporting patient engagement and empowerment is increasingly seen as essential in providing person-centered health care to people with chronic illness. Mobile apps helping patients reflect on their concerns as preparation for consultations with their health care providers can have beneficial effects on the consultation quality. However, apps focusing on empowerment and personal strengths are still scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) develop a mobile app to support patients with rheumatic diseases in reflecting on their strengths in preparation for consultations with health care providers and (2) explore patients' perceived usability of the app in a nonclinical test setting. METHODS: A prototype app was developed based on input from patients and health care providers, as reported in previous studies. The app was designed for use in self-management support settings aiming to promote awareness of strengths and to focus attention on strengths in the patient-health care provider dialogue. The features included in the prototype were as follows: (1) introduction to the topic of strengths, (2) list of examples of strengths to promote reflection and registration of own strengths, (3) summary of registered strengths, (4) value-based goal setting, (5) linking of strengths to goals, (6) summary of all registrations, and (7) options to share summary digitally or as a print version. In this study, the app was refined through a formative evaluation with patients and health care providers recruited from a specialized rheumatology hospital unit. Patients' perceptions of the app's usability were explored in a test setting with self-report measurements and semistructured interviews. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed with directed content analysis. Data from questionnaires were analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Developmental and formative evaluation included 18 patients and 7 health care providers. The evaluation resulted in minor adjustments to the prototype but no major changes in features. The usability testing included 12 patients. All participants found the usability acceptable; the median score on the System Usability Scale was 86.3 (range 70-100). All reported that it was meaningful and relevant to use the app. Out of 12 participants, 9 (75%) reported becoming more aware of their own strengths by using the app; 1 (8%) disagreed and 2 (17%) provided a neutral response. The results on the goal-related feature were mixed, with half of the patients finding it useful to link strengths to concrete goals. A statistically significant positive change from pre- to postintervention was identified on measures of self-efficacy and negative emotions. CONCLUSIONS: In this formative evaluation of a mobile app to promote patients' reflections on their strengths, patients perceived the app as meaningful and supporting awareness. The results suggest the usefulness of building in functionality to support use of strengths and goal attainment. Further studies on efficacy and usability in a clinical setting, including health care providers, are needed.

Implementation Strategies to Enhance the Implementation of eHealth Programs for Patients With Chronic Illnesses: Realist Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence of the positive effects of electronic health (eHealth) interventions for patients with chronic illness, but implementation of such interventions into practice is challenging. Implementation strategies that potentially impact implementation outcomes and implementation success have been identified. Which strategies are actually used in the implementation of eHealth interventions for patients with chronic illness and which ones are the most effective is unclear. OBJECTIVE: This systematic realist review aimed to summarize evidence from empirical studies regarding (1) which implementation strategies are used when implementing eHealth interventions for patients with chronic illnesses living at home, (2) implementation outcomes, and (3) the relationship between implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, and degree of implementation success. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they described implementation strategies used to support the integration of eHealth interventions into practice. Implementation strategies were categorized according to 9 categories defined by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project: (1) engage consumers, (2) use evaluative and iterative strategies, (3) change infrastructure, (4) adapt and tailor to the context, (5) develop stakeholder interrelationships, (6) use financial strategies, (7) support clinicians, (8) provide interactive assistance, and (9) train and educate stakeholders. Implementation outcomes were extracted according to the implementation outcome framework by Proctor and colleagues: (1) acceptability, (2) adoption, (3) appropriateness, (4) cost, (5) feasibility, (6) fidelity, (7) penetration, and (8) sustainability. Implementation success was extracted according to the study authors' own evaluation of implementation success in relation to the used implementation strategies. RESULTS: The implementation strategies management support and engagement, internal and external facilitation, training, and audit and feedback were directly related to implementation success in several studies. No clear relationship was found between the number of implementation strategies used and implementation success. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review examining implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, and implementation success of studies reporting the implementation of eHealth programs for patients with chronic illnesses living at home. The review indicates that internal and external facilitation, audit and feedback, management support, and training of clinicians are of importance for eHealth implementation. The review also points to the lack of eHealth studies that report implementation strategies in a comprehensive way and highlights the need to design robust studies focusing on implementation strategies in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018085539; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=85539.

A Stress Management App Intervention for Cancer Survivors: Design, Development, and Usability Testing.

BACKGROUND: Distress is prevalent in cancer survivors. Stress management interventions can reduce distress and improve quality of life for cancer patients, but many people with cancer are unfortunately not offered or able to attend such in-person stress management interventions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop an evidence-based stress management intervention for patients living with cancer that can be delivered electronically with wide reach and dissemination. This paper describes the design and development process of a technology-based stress management intervention for cancer survivors, including the exploration phase, intervention content development, iterative software development (including design, development, and formative evaluation of low- and high-level prototypes), and security and privacy considerations. METHODS: Design and development processes were iterative and performed in close collaboration with key stakeholders (N=48). In the exploration phase, identifying needs and requirements for the intervention, 28 participants gave input, including male and female cancer survivors (n=11) representing a wide age range (31-81 years) and cancer diagnoses, healthcare providers (n=8) including psychosocial oncology experts, and eHealth experts (n=9) including information technology design and developers. To ensure user involvement in each phase various user-centered design and service design methods were included, such as interviews, usability testing, and think aloud processes. Overall, participants were involved usability testing in the software development and formative evaluation phase, including cancer survivors (n=6), healthy volunteers (n=7), health care providers (n=2), and eHealth experts (n=5). Intervention content was developed by stress management experts based on well-known cognitive behavioral stress management strategies and adjusted to electronic format through multiple iterations with stakeholders. Privacy and security issues were considered throughout. RESULTS: The design and development process identified a variety of stakeholder requirements. Cancer survivors preferred stress management through a mobile app rather than through a personal computer (PC) and identified usefulness, easy access, user friendliness, use of easily understandable language, and many brief sections rather than longer ones as important components of the intervention. These requirements were also supported by recommendations from health care providers and eHealth experts. The final intervention was named StressProffen and the hospital Privacy and Security Protection Committee was part of the final intervention approval to also ensure anchoring in the hospital organization. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions, even evidence-based, have little impact if not actively used. This study illustrates how user-centered design and service design can be applied to identify and incorporate essential stakeholder aspects in the entire design and development process. In combination with evidence-based concepts, this process facilitated development of a stress management intervention truly designed for the end users, in this case, cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02939612; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02939612 (Archived at WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/71l9HcfcB).