An interactive health promotion program for hospitalized heart failure patients requires empathic content, interactive learning, and seamless integration into existing nursing educational practices.
Should not yet change HF education practices; leaves open whether needs-based programs improve outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a chronic condition, prevalent especially among older people, characterized by acute episodes leading to hospitalization. To promote HF patients' engagement in physical activity (PA) and adherence to medication, we developed Motivate4Change: a new interactive, information and communication technology (ICT)-based health promotion program for delivery in the hospital. The development of this program was guided by the Intervention Mapping protocol for the planning of health promotion programs. The users of Motivate4Change were defined as hospitalized HF patients and hospital nurses involved in HF patient education. OBJECTIVE: Two aims were addressed. First, to explore the use of interactive technology in the hospital setting and second, to evaluate user needs in order to incorporate them in Motivate4Change. METHODS: Participant observations at a hospital in the United Kingdom and semistructured interviews were conducted with hospitalized HF patients and HF nurses following their completion of Motivate4Change. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed according to a thematic coding approach. RESULTS: Seven patients and 3 nurses completed Motivate4Change and were interviewed. Results demonstrated that patient needs included empathic and contextual content, interactive learning, and support from others, including nurses and family members. The nurse needs included integration in current educational practices and finding opportunities for provision of the program. CONCLUSIONS: The current work provides insight into user needs regarding an interactive-technology health promotion program for implementation in the hospital setting, such as Motivate4Change.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oosterom-Calo et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: