Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Informing evaluation of a smartphone application for people with acquired brain injury: a stakeholder engagement study

Authors: Jade Kettlewell, Julie Phillips, Kate Radford, Roshan dasNair

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Brain in Hand is a smartphone application (app) that allows users to create structured diaries with problems and solutions, attach reminders, record task completion and has a symptom monitoring system. Brain in Hand was designed to support people with psychological problems, and encourage behaviour monitoring and change. The aim of this paper is to describe the process of exploring the barriers and enablers for the uptake and use of Brain in Hand in clinical practice, identify potential adaptations of the app for use with people with acquired brain injury (ABI), and determine whether the behaviour change wheel can be used as a model for engagement.

Methods

We identified stakeholders: ABI survivors and carers, National Health Service and private healthcare professionals, and engaged with them via focus groups, conference presentations, small group discussions, and through questionnaires. The results were evaluated using the behaviour change wheel and descriptive statistics of questionnaire responses.

Results

We engaged with 20 ABI survivors, 5 carers, 25 professionals, 41 questionnaires were completed by stakeholders. Comments made during group discussions were supported by questionnaire results. Enablers included smartphone competency (capability), personalisation of app (opportunity), and identifying perceived need (motivation). Barriers included a physical and cognitive inability to use smartphone (capability), potential cost and reliability of technology (opportunity), and no desire to use technology or change from existing strategies (motivation). The stakeholders identified potential uses and changes to the app, which were not easily mapped onto the behaviour change wheel, e.g. monitoring fatigue levels, method of logging task completion, and editing the diary on their smartphone.

Conclusions

The study identified that both ABI survivors and therapists could see a use for Brain in Hand, but wanted users to be able to personalise it themselves to address individual user needs, e.g. monitoring activity levels. The behaviour change wheel is a useful tool when designing and evaluating engagement activities as it addresses most aspects of implementation, however additional categories may be needed to explore the specific features of assistive technology interventions, e.g. technical functions.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, S. Brain injury rehabilitation in adults. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2013.
2.
Tennant A, Headway. Acquired brain injury: the numbers behind the hidden disability; 2015. p. 9–11. http://​www.​headway.​co.​uk/​
3.
4.
Charters E, Gillett L, Simpson GK. Efficacy of electronic portable assistive devices for people with acquired brain injury: a systematic review. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2015;25(1):82–121.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Jamieson M, JJ Evans, Assistive technology for executive functions, in Assistive technology for cognition: A handbook for clinicians and developers. London: Psychology Press; 2015. p. 81–92.
6.
Ferguson S, Friedland D, Woodberry E. Smartphone technology: gentle reminders of everyday tasks for those with prospective memory difficulties post-brain injury. Brain Inj. 2015;29(5):583–91.CrossRefPubMed
7.
McDonald A, et al. Google calendar: a new memory aid to compensate for prospective memory deficits following acquired brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2011;21(6):784–807.CrossRefPubMed
8.
De Joode EA, et al. Effectiveness of an electronic cognitive aid in patients with acquired brain injury: a multicentre randomised parallel-group study. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2013;23(1):133–56.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Wilson BA, et al. Reducing everyday memory and planning problems by means of a paging system: a randomised control crossover study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;70(4):477–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Jamieson M, et al. The efficacy of cognitive prosthetic technology for people with memory impairments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2014;24(3–4):419–44.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
de Joode E, et al. Efficacy and usability of assistive technology for patients with cognitive deficits: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24(8):701–14.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Dewar, B.-K., et al., Assistive technology for memory, in Assistive Technology for Cognition: A handbook for clinicians and developers. London: Psychology Press; 2015. p. 31–41.
14.
Boman IL, et al. Using electronic aids to daily living after acquired brain injury: a study of the learning process and the usability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(1):23–33.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Baldwin VN, Powell T. Google calendar: a single case experimental design study of a man with severe memory problems. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2015;25(4):617–36.CrossRefPubMed
16.
O'Neill, B. and A. Gillespie, Assistive technology for cognition, in Assistive Technology for Cognition: A handbook for clinicians and developers. London: Psychology Press; 2015. p. 1–11.
17.
Dowds MM, et al. Electronic reminding technology following traumatic brain injury: effects on timely task completion. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2011;26(5):339–47.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Gagnon MP, et al. m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):212–20.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Cruz G, et al. Text messages reduce memory failures in adults with brain injury: a single-case experimental design. Br J Occup Ther. 2016;79(10):598–606.CrossRef
20.
Tornas S, et al. Rehabilitation of executive functions in patients with chronic acquired brain injury with goal management training, external cuing, and emotional regulation: a randomized controlled trial. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2016;22(4):436–52.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Suffoletto B, et al. Mobile phone text messaging to assess symptoms after mild traumatic brain injury and provide self-care support: a pilot study. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2013;28(4):302–12.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Jamieson M, et al. ForgetMeNot: active reminder entry support for adults with acquired brain injury, ACM CHI conference on human factors in computing systems; 2017. p. 6012–23.
23.
Raiman L, Antbring R, Mahmood A. WhatsApp messenger as a tool to supplement medical education for medical students on clinical attachment. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
25.
Gillespie A, Best C, O'Neill B. Cognitive function and assistive technology for cognition: a systematic review. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2012;18(1):1–19.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Mahar C, Fraser K. Strategies to facilitate successful community reintegration following acquired brain injury (ABI). Int J Disabil Manag. 2011;6(01):68–78.CrossRef
27.
Dombovy ML, Olek AC. Recovery and rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 1997;11(5):305–18.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Rimel RW, et al. Moderate head injury: completing the clinical Spectrum of brain trauma. Neurosurgery. 1982;11(3):344–51.CrossRefPubMed
29.
BritishPsychological Society, Clinical neuropsychology and rehabilitation services for adults with acquired brain injury, B.P.S.D.o. Neuuropsychology, Editor. UK: British Psychological Society; 2005.
30.
Boman I, et al. Support in everyday activities with a home-based electronic memory aid for persons with memory impairments. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(5):339–50. 12pCrossRefPubMed
31.
Fish J, et al. Rehabilitation of executive dysfunction following brain injury: “content-free” cueing improves everyday prospective memory performance. Neuropsychologia. 2007;45(6):1318–30.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Jamieson M, et al. Issues influencing the uptake of smartphone reminder apps for people with acquired brain injury. In: Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility; 2015. ACM.
33.
de Joode EA, et al. Use of assistive technology in cognitive rehabilitation: exploratory studies of the opinions and expectations of healthcare professionals and potential users. Brain Inj. 2012;26(10):1257–66.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Wong D, et al. Smartphones as assistive technology following traumatic brain injury: a preliminary study of what helps and what hinders. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(23):2387-94.
35.
VODG, Using assistive technology to support personalisation in social care. UK: The Voluntary Organisations Disability Group (VODG); 2013. p. 4–7, 22–23.
36.
VODG, Technology is changing the way we live. Can it also transform the way we deliver adult social care? UK: The Voluntary Organisations Disability Group (VODG); 2016.
37.
Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
West R, Michie S. A guide to development and evaluation of digital behaviour change interventions in healthcare. London: Silverback Publishing; 2016.
39.
Ross J, et al. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Hartzler A, et al. Stakeholder engagement: a key component of integrating genomic information into electronic health records. Genet Med. 2013;15(10):792–801.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Liddell, A., S. Adshead, and E. Burgess Technology in the NHS: transforming the patient’s experience of care.. 2008.
42.
Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(2):112–33.CrossRef
43.
Stoyanov SR, Hides L, Kavanagh DJ, Zelenko O, Tjondronegoro D, Mani M. Mobile App Rating Scale: A New Tool for Assessing the Quality of Health Mobile Apps. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2015;3(1):e27.
44.
Borsci S, Federici S, Lauriola M. On the dimensionality of the system usability scale: a test of alternative measurement models. Cogn Process. 2009;10(3):193–7.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Michie S, Atkins L, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a guide to designing interventions, vol. 23. London: Silverback Publishing; 2014. p. 145–50.
46.
Wood CE, et al. Applying the behaviour change technique (BCT) taxonomy v1: a study of coder training. Transl Behav Med. 2015;5(2):134–48.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Connell LA, et al. Development of a behaviour change intervention to increase upper limb exercise in stroke rehabilitation. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):1.CrossRef
48.
Evald L. Prospective memory rehabilitation using smartphones in patients with TBI: what do participants report? Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2015;25(2):283–97.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Lawton R, et al. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand adherence to multiple evidence-based indicators in primary care: a qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2016;11:113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):1.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Informing evaluation of a smartphone application for people with acquired brain injury: a stakeholder engagement study
Authors
Jade Kettlewell
Julie Phillips
Kate Radford
Roshan dasNair
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0611-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Are publicly available internet resources enabling women to make informed fertility preservation decisions before starting cancer treatment: an environmental scan?

Research article

SNOMED CT standard ontology based on the ontology for general medical science

Study protocol

Information sharing across generations and environments (InfoSAGE): study design and methodology protocol

Software

Trio-R: a script for assessing maternity and paternity in trio studies performed on Agilent chromosomal microarrays

Research article

The effect of model selection on cost-effectiveness research: a comparison of kidney function-based microsimulation and disease grade-based microsimulation in chronic kidney disease modeling

Research article

Effective behavioral intervention strategies using mobile health applications for chronic disease management: a systematic review