Developing mHealth to the Context and Valuation of Injured Patients and Professionals in Hospital Trauma Care: Qualitative and Quantitative Formative Evaluations (Preprint)
Authors: Houwen Thymen , Vugts Miel A P , Lansink Koen W W , Theeuwes Hilco P , Neequaye Nicky , Beerekamp M Susan H , Joosen Margot C W , de Jongh Mariska A C 
Published: January 2022

BACKGROUND

Trauma care faces challenges to innovating their services, such as with mobile health (mHealth) app, to improve the quality of care and patients’ health experience. Systematic needs inquiries and collaborations with professional and patient end users are highly recommended to develop and prepare future implementations of such innovations.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop a trauma mHealth app for patient information and support in accordance with the Center for eHealth Research and Disease Management road map and describe experiences of unmet information and support needs among injured patients with trauma, barriers to and facilitators of the provision of information and support among trauma care professionals, and drivers of value of an mHealth app in patients with trauma and trauma care professionals.

METHODS

Formative evaluations were conducted using quantitative and qualitative methods. Ten semistructured interviews with patients with trauma and a focus group with 4 trauma care professionals were conducted for contextual inquiry and value specification. User requirements and value drivers were applied in prototyping. Furthermore, a complementary quantitative discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 109 Dutch trauma surgeons, which enabled triangulation on value specification results. In the DCE, preferences were stated for hypothetical mHealth products with various attributes. Panel data from the DCE were analyzed using conditional and mixed logit models.

RESULTS

Patients disclosed a need for more psychosocial support and easy access to more extensive information on their injury, its consequences, and future prospects. Health care professionals designated workload as an essential issue; a digital solution should not require additional time. The conditional logit model of DCE results suggested that access to patient app data through electronic medical record integration (odds ratio [OR] 3.3, 95% CI 2.55-4.34; <i>P</i>&lt;.001) or a web viewer (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.64-3.31; <i>P</i>&lt;.001) was considered the most important for an mHealth solution by surgeons, followed by the inclusion of periodic self-measurements (OR 2, 95% CI 1.64-2.46; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), the local adjustment of patient information (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.42-2.33; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), local hospital identification (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.31-2.10; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), complication detection (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.21-1.84; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), and the personalization of rehabilitation through artificial intelligence (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.13-1.62; <i>P</i>=.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of trauma care, end users have many requirements for an mHealth solution that addresses psychosocial functioning; dependable information; and, possibly, a prediction of how a patient’s recovery trajectory is evolving. A structured development approach provided insights into value drivers and facilitated mHealth prototype enhancement. The findings imply that iterative development should move on from simple and easily implementable mHealth solutions to those that are suitable for broader innovations of care pathways that most—but plausibly not yet all—end users in trauma care will value. This study could inspire the trauma care community.