Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND Research supports the use of mobile phone apps to promote medication adherence, but there are few studies conducted with medically underserved patients with chronic illness. OBJECTIVE This is a study of the overall use and satisfaction with a medication adherence app that was tested within a randomized controlled efficacy trial. METHODS Medically underserved adults who received care for one or more chronic illnesses at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) were randomized to a group who used the app for one month (n = 30) or a control group (n = 31). Self-reported and objective use and satisfaction information in the app study group was gathered via a follow-up questionnaire and data supplied by the app company. RESULTS The participants were very satisfied with the app with all (n = 30, 100%) somewhat or strongly agreeing they would recommend the app to family and friends. Intervention group participants strongly agreed (n=28, 93.3%) that the reminders helped them remember to take their medications at the correct time each day. Participants found it easy to use (n=28, 93.3%). Additional features accessed by some included educational features and the adherence report. Participants noted the helpfulness of having a medication list on their phone and some used it during medication reconciliation at doctor visits. Use of the Medfriend feature, which alerts a social support person if the participant missed a medication, was low (n = 2), but those who used it were very positive about the feature. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that a commercially available medication adherence app was found useful by participants, and they were satisfied with the app and the additional features they used. The use of medication adherence mobile phone apps has the potential to positively impact chronic disease management in a medically underserved population on a larger scale. CLINICALTRIAL The RCT is registered at clinicaltrials.gov registry number NCT05098743
Hartch et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: