Key result
A systematic review of 7 studies found that mobile health applications for atrial fibrillation improved patient knowledge, behaviour, and quality of life, though data on provider behaviour is scarce.
Why the study?
Many mobile health apps are available for AF management, but content and quality vary considerably and few have undergone formal assessment.
Do mobile health applications improve knowledge, behavior, quality of life, and user engagement in patients with atrial fibrillation and healthcare professionals?
Systematic Review
Do mobile health applications improve knowledge, behavior, quality of life, and user engagement in patients with atrial fibrillation and healthcare professionals?
Mobile health applications for atrial fibrillation show promise in improving patient knowledge, quality of life, and guideline adherence, though larger, longer-term studies are needed.
May support m-health integration for AF patient education and adherence; leaves open larger RCTs on HCP impact and scalability.
AIMS: A plethora of mobile health applications (m-health apps) to support healthcare are available for both patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) but content and quality vary considerably and few have undergone formal assessment. The aim is to systematically review the literature on m-health apps for managing atrial fibrillation (AF) that examine the impact on knowledge of AF, patient and HCP behaviour, patients' quality-of-life, and user engagement. METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychInfo were searched from 1 January 2005 to 5 September 2019, with hand-searching of clinical trial registers and grey literature. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported changes in any of the following: (i) knowledge of AF; (ii) provider behaviour (e.g. guideline adherence); (iii) patient behaviour (e.g. medication adherence); (iv) patient quality-of-life; and (v) user engagement. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. A narrative review was undertaken as included studies varied widely in their design, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Seven studies were included; six m-health apps aimed at patients and one at HCPs. Mobile health apps ranged widely in design, features, and method of delivery. Four studies reported patient knowledge of AF; three demonstrated significant knowledge improvement post-intervention or compared to usual care. One study reported greater HCP adherence to oral anticoagulation guidelines after m-health app implementation. Two studies reported on patient medication adherence and quality-of-life; both showed improved quality-of-life post-intervention but only one observed increased adherence. Regarding user engagement, five studies reported patient perspectives on usability, three on acceptability, and one on feasibility; overall all m-health apps were rated positively. CONCLUSION: Mobile health apps demonstrate improvements in patient knowledge, behaviour, and quality of life. Studies formally evaluating the impact of m-health on HCP behaviour are scarce and larger-scale studies with representative patient cohorts, appropriate comparators, and longer-term assessment of the impact of m-health apps are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lane et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review in Atrial fibrillation. Mobile health applications (m-health apps) vs. Usual care or no intervention was evaluated on Impact on knowledge of AF, patient and HCP behaviour, patients' quality-of-life, and user engagement. A systematic review of 7 studies found that mobile health applications for atrial fibrillation improved patient knowledge, behaviour, and quality of life, though data on provider behaviour is scarce.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: