Evidence mapPaperPMID 33108792Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

The difference in knowledge and attitudes of using mobile health applications between actual user and non-user among adults aged 50 and older.

Mangyeong Lee, Danbee Kang, Junghee Yoon, Sungkeun Shim, Im-Ryung Kim, Dongryul Oh, Soo-Yong Shin, Bradford W Hesse, Juhee Cho

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mangyeong LeeDepartment of Digital Health, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6266-5978
Danbee KangCenter for Clinical Epidemiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Junghee YoonDepartment of Digital Health, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.
Sungkeun ShimDepartment of Digital Health, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.
Im-Ryung KimCancer Education Center, Samsung Comprehensive Cancer Center, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Dongryul OhDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Soo-Yong ShinDepartment of Digital Health, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.
Bradford W HesseNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States of America.
Juhee ChoDepartment of Digital Health, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.
Samsung Medical Center · KRJohns Hopkins University · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the great benefits of mobile health applications (mHAs) in managing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) internationally, studies have documented general challenges to broad adoption of mHAs among older age groups. By focusing on broad adoption, these studies have been limited in their evaluation of adults aged 50 and older who have high risk of NCDs and can benefit the most from the functionalities provided by mHAs.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the knowledge, self-confidence, perceived benefits, and barriers of using mHAs depending on experience with mHAs among adults aged 50 and older. Furthermore, we aim to identify the factors associated with the actual use of mHAs.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey at a single tertiary hospital in Seoul, Korea, between May 1 and May 31, 2018. Of the 625 participants who were contacted, 323 participants were granted full inclusion to the study. We compared demographics, knowledge, self-confidence, and perceived benefits and barriers by experience with using mHAs, then performed logistic regression to identify the factors associated with mHA use.

resultsAmong the participants, 64.1% (N = 207) had experience using mHAs. Those in the experienced group were more likely to have more than college education (55.1% vs. 27.5%, P < 0.001) and to report a higher monthly income (≥ $7,000, 22.7% vs. 18.1%, P = 0.05) than their less-experienced counterparts. Although the experienced group was more likely to have higher self-confidence in using mHAs, about half of the study participants, including people with experience using mHAs, did not have appropriate knowledge of mobile technology. With adjusted logistic model, higher educated (adjusted PR (aPR) = 1.53, 95% CI, 1.26-1.80), higher perceived benefits of mHAs (aPR = 1.43, 95% CI, 1.04-1.83), and higher self-confidence using mHAs (aPR = 1.41, 95% CI, 1.12-1.70) were significant factors associated with mHA use.

conclusionsThe use of mHAs among adults aged 50 and older is becoming more common globally; nevertheless, there are still people unable to use mHAs properly because of lack of experience and knowledge. Strategies are needed to encourage the reliable usage of mHAs among those who may need it the most by improving self-confidence and better articulating benefits.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMobile ApplicationsTelemedicineAdultDigital TechnologyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSelf Concept

Identifiers

PMID33108792
PMCPMC7591083
OpenAlexW3096480707

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.