A Mobile Phone-Based Self-Monitoring Tool for Perioperative Gastric Cancer Patients With Incentive Spirometer: Randomized Controlled Trial

Ji Yeong Soh, Se Uk Lee, Inpyo Lee, Ki Sang Yoon, Changho Song, Nam Hun Kim, Tae Sung Sohn, Jae Moon Bae, Dong Kyung Chang, Won Chul Cha, Ji Yeong Soh, Se Uk Lee, Inpyo Lee, Ki Sang Yoon, Changho Song, Nam Hun Kim, Tae Sung Sohn, Jae Moon Bae, Dong Kyung Chang, Won Chul Cha

Abstract

Background: An incentive spirometer (IS) is a medical device used to help patients improve the functioning of their lungs. It is provided to patients who have had any surgery that might jeopardize respiratory function. An incentive spirometer plays a key role in the prevention of postoperative complications, and the appropriate use of an IS is especially well known for the prevention of respiratory complications. However, IS utilization depends on the patient's engagement, and information and communication technology (ICT) can help in this area.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the effect of mobile ICT on the usage of an IS (Go-breath) app by postoperative patients after general anesthesia.

Methods: For this study, we recruited patients from April to May 2018, who used the Go-breath app at a single tertiary hospital in South Korea. The patients were randomly classified into either a test or control group. The main function of the Go-breath app was to allow for self-reporting and frequency monitoring of IS use, deep breathing, and active coughing in real time. The Go-breath app was identical for both the test and control groups, except for the presence of the alarm function. The test group heard an alarm every 60 min from 9 am to 9 pm for 2 days. For the test group alone, a dashboard was established in the nurse's station through which a nurse could rapidly assess the performance of multiple patients. To evaluate the number of performances per group, we constructed an incentive spirometer index (ISI).

Results: A total of 44 patients were recruited, and 42 of them completed the study protocol. ISI in the test group was 20.2 points higher than that in the control group (113.5 points in the test group and 93.2 points in the control group, P=.22). The system usability scale generally showed almost the same score in the 2 groups (79.3 points in the test group and 79.4 points in the control group, P=.94). We observed that the performance rates of IS count, active coughing, and deep breathing were also higher in the test group but with no statistically significant difference between the groups. For the usefulness "yes or no" question, over 90% (38/42) of patients answered "yes" and wanted more functional options and information.

Conclusions: The use of the Go-breath app resulted in considerable differences between the test group and control group but with no statistically significant differences.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03569332; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03569332 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/74ihKmQIX).

Keywords: gastric cancer; incentive spirometer; mobile health; motivation; postoperative care.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: IP, GS, NH, and CH are employees of the company that developed the Go-breath app.

©Ji Yeong Soh, Se Uk Lee, Inpyo Lee, Ki Sang Yoon, Changho Song, Nam Hun Kim, Tae Sung Sohn, Jae Moon Bae, Dong Kyung Chang, Won Chul Cha. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 19.02.2019.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study protocol. Superscripted "a" indicates alarm every 50 min for insufficient during 9am-9pm (alarm off during 9pm-9am); "b" indicates calculation of performance score applies only to incentive spirometer (full score 240, 10 out of 10 points). V/S: blood pressure, fever, body temperature, respiration rate; CRP: C-reactive protein; IS: incentive spirometer; PA: posterior to anterior; WBC: white blood cell.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Screenshot of the Go-breath app (left) and dashboard (right). The original version was in Korean, but it was modified to display English.
Figure 3
Figure 3
System architecture. API: application programming interface; AWS: Amazon Web Service.

References

    1. García-Miguel FJ, Serrano-Aguilar PG, López-Bastida J. Preoperative assessment. Lancet. 2003 Nov 22;362(9397):1749–57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14857-X.
    1. Restrepo RD, Wettstein R, Wittnebel L, Tracy M. Incentive spirometry: 2011. Respir Care. 2011 Oct;56(10):1600–4. doi: 10.4187/respcare.01471.
    1. Sebio R, Yáñez-Brage MI, Giménez-Moolhuyzen E, Valenza MC, Reychler G, Cahalin LP. Impact of a pre-operative pulmonary rehabilitation program on functional performance in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer. Arch Bronconeumol. 2016 May;52(5):231–2. doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2015.10.013.
    1. Kumar AS, Alaparthi GK, Augustine AJ, Pazhyaottayil ZC, Ramakrishna A, Krishnakumar SK. Comparison of flow and volume incentive spirometry on pulmonary function and exercise tolerance in open abdominal surgery: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Jan 1;10(1):KC01–6. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/16164.7064.
    1. Malik PR, Fahim C, Vernon J, Thomas P, Schieman C, Finley CJ, Agzarian J, Shargall Y, Farrokhyar F, Hanna WC. Incentive spirometry after lung resection: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018 Aug;106(2):340–5. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.03.051.
    1. Hall JC, Tarala RA, Tapper J, Hall JL. Prevention of respiratory complications after abdominal surgery: a randomised clinical trial. Br Med J. 1996 Jan 20;312(7024):148–52. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7024.148.
    1. Westwood K, Griffin M, Roberts K, Williams M, Yoong K, Digger T. Incentive spirometry decreases respiratory complications following major abdominal surgery. Surgeon. 2007 Dec;5(6):339–42. doi: 10.1016/S1479-666X(07)80086-2.
    1. Agostini P, Singh S. Incentive spirometry following thoracic surgery: what should we be doing? Physiotherapy. 2009 Jun;95(2):76–82. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2008.11.003.
    1. Jaensson M, Dahlberg K, Eriksson M, Nilsson U. Evaluation of postoperative recovery in day surgery patients using a mobile phone application: a multicentre randomized trial. Br J Anaesth. 2017 Nov 1;119(5):1030–8. doi: 10.1093/bja/aex331.
    1. Hung WW, Ross JS, Farber J, Siu AL. Evaluation of the Mobile Acute Care of the Elderly (MACE) service. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Jun 10;173(11):990–6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.478.
    1. Semple J, Sharpe S, Murnaghan M, Theodoropoulos J, Metcalfe K. Using a mobile app for monitoring post-operative quality of recovery of patients at home: a feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Feb 12;3(1):e18. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3929.
    1. Williams A, Bhatti U, Alam H, Nikolian V. The role of telemedicine in postoperative care. Mhealth. 2018;4:11. doi: 10.21037/mhealth.2018.04.03. doi: 10.21037/mhealth.2018.04.03.
    1. Dadlani R, Mani S, Mohan D, Rajgopalan N, Thakar S, Aryan S, Hegde AS. The impact of telemedicine in the postoperative care of the neurosurgery patient in an outpatient clinic: a unique perspective of this valuable resource in the developing world--an experience of more than 3000 teleconsultations. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(3-4):270–83. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.05.027.
    1. Siddle J, Pang P, Weaver C, Weinstein E, O'Donnell D, Arkins T, Miramonti C, CORE team M. Mobile integrated health to reduce post-discharge acute care visits: a pilot study. Am J Emerg Med. 2018 May;36(5):843–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.12.064.
    1. Borsci S, Federici S, Lauriola M. On the dimensionality of the System Usability Scale: a test of alternative measurement models. Cogn Process. 2009 Aug;10(3):193–7. doi: 10.1007/s10339-009-0268-9.
    1. Borsci S, Federici S, Bacci S, Gnaldi M, Bartolucci F. Assessing user satisfaction in the era of user experience: comparison of the SUS, UMUX, and UMUX-LITE as a function of product experience. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2015 Jun 24;31(8):484–95. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2015.1064648.
    1. Kortum P, Bangor A. Usability ratings for everyday products measured with the System Usability Scale. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2012 Apr 11;29(2):67–76. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2012.681221.
    1. Sauro J, Lewis JR. Quantifying the User Experience: Practical Statistics for User Research. USA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2012.
    1. Brooke J. Usability Evaluation in Industry. UK: CRC Press; 1996. SUS-a quick and dirty usability scale; pp. 4–7.
    1. Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Journ Usability Stud. 2009. May, Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale
    1. Lehmann M, Monte K, Barach P, Kindler CH. Postoperative patient complaints: a prospective interview study of 12,276 patients. J Clin Anesth. 2010 Feb;22(1):13–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2009.02.015.
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149–60. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
    1. Overdijkink SB, Velu AV, Rosman AN, van Beukering MD, Kok M, Steegers-Theunissen RP. The usability and effectiveness of mobile health technology-based lifestyle and medical intervention apps supporting health care during pregnancy: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Apr 24;6(4):e109. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.8834.
    1. Robinson MD, Branham AR, Locklear A, Robertson S, Gridley T. Measuring satisfaction and usability of FaceTime for virtual visits in patients with uncontrolled diabetes. Telemed J E Health. 2015 Aug 21; doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0238.
    1. Ackermann RT, Finch EA, Brizendine E, Zhou H, Marrero DG. Translating the diabetes prevention program into the community. The DEPLOY pilot study. Am J Prev Med. 2008 Oct;35(4):357–63. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.06.035.
    1. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP): description of lifestyle intervention. Diabetes Care. 2002 Dec 1;25(12):2165–71. doi: 10.2337/diacare.25.12.2165.
    1. Yu X, Chau JP, Huo L. The effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine-based lifestyle interventions on biomedical, psychosocial, and behavioral outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018 Apr;80:165–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.01.009.
    1. Xiao L, Yank V, Wilson SR, Lavori PW, Ma J. Two-year weight-loss maintenance in primary care-based Diabetes Prevention Program lifestyle interventions. Nutr Diabetes. 2013 Jun;3:e76. doi: 10.1038/nutd.2013.17.
    1. Richards KA, Jones E. Customer relationship management: finding value drivers. Indust Mark Manag. 2008 Apr;37(2):120–30. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.08.005.
    1. Soh JY, Cha WC, Chang DK, Hwang JH, Kim K, Rha M, Kwon H. Development and validation of a multidisciplinary mobile care system for patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer: interventional observation study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 May 7;6(5):e115. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9363.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere