Implementation of depression screening in antenatal clinics through tablet computers: results of a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Mobile devices may facilitate depression screening in the waiting area of antenatal clinics. This can present implementation challenges, of which we focused on survey layout and technology deployment. METHODS: We assessed the feasibility of using tablet computers to administer a socio-demographic survey, the Whooley questions and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to 530 pregnant women attending National Health Service (NHS) antenatal clinics across England. We randomised participants to one of two layout versions of these surveys: (i) a scrolling layout where each survey was presented on a single screen; or (ii) a paging layout where only one question appeared on the screen at any given time. RESULTS: Overall, 85.10% of eligible pregnant women agreed to take part. Of these, 90.95% completed the study procedures. Approximately 23% of participants answered Yes to at least one Whooley question, and approximately 13% of them scored 10 points of more on the EPDS. We observed no association between survey layout and the responses given to the Whooley questions, the median EPDS scores, the number of participants at increased risk of self-harm, and the number of participants asking for technical assistance. However, we observed a difference in the number of participants at each EPDS scoring interval (p = 0.008), which provide an indication of a woman's risk of depression. A scrolling layout resulted in faster completion times (median = 4 min 46 s) than a paging layout (median = 5 min 33 s) (p = 0.024). However, the clinical significance of this difference (47.5 s) is yet to be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Tablet computers can be used for depression screening in the waiting area of antenatal clinics. This requires the careful consideration of clinical workflows, and technology-related issues such as connectivity and security. An association between survey layout and EPDS scoring intervals needs to be explored further to determine if it corresponds to a survey layout effect. Future research needs to evaluate the effect of this type of antenatal depression screening on clinical outcomes and clinic workflows. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT02516982 on 20 July 2015

Offline eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction

Background: The world is short of 7.2 million health–care workers and this figure is growing. The shortage of teachers is even greater, which limits traditional education modes. eLearning may help overcome this training need. Offline eLearning is useful in remote and resource–limited settings with poor internet access. To inform investments in offline eLearning, we need to establish its effectiveness in terms of gaining knowledge and skills, students’ satisfaction and attitudes towards eLearning. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of offline eLearning for students enrolled in undergraduate, health–related university degrees. We included randomised controlled trials that compared offline eLearning to traditional learning or an alternative eLearning method. We searched the major bibliographic databases in August 2013 to identify articles that focused primarily on students’ knowledge, skills, satisfaction and attitudes toward eLearning, and health economic information and adverse effects as secondary outcomes. We also searched reference lists of relevant studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. We synthesized the findings using a thematic summary approach. Findings: Forty–nine studies, including 4955 students enrolled in undergraduate medical, dentistry, nursing, psychology, or physical therapy studies, met the inclusion criteria. Eleven of the 33 studies testing knowledge gains found significantly higher gains in the eLearning intervention groups compared to traditional learning, whereas 21 did not detect significant differences or found mixed results. One study did not test for differences. Eight studies detected significantly higher skill gains in the eLearning intervention groups, whilst the other 5 testing skill gains did not detect differences between groups. No study found offline eLearning as inferior. Generally no differences in attitudes or preference of eLearning over traditional learning were observed. No clear trends were found in the comparison of different modes of eLearning. Most of the studies were small and subject to several biases. Conclusions: Our results suggest that offline eLearning is equivalent and possibly superior to traditional learning regarding knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. Although a robust conclusion cannot be drawn due to variable quality of the evidence, these results justify further investment into offline eLearning to address the global health care workforce shortage

Tablet computers for implementing NICE antenatal mental health guidelines: protocol of a feasibility study

Introduction Depression is one of the most common mental health disorders that may affect women during pregnancy. The prompt identification of this disorder, and the provision of treatment, may help to reduce the likelihood of post-partum depression, prevent severe forms of the disease, and reduce its intergenerational impact. Despite women's repeated encounters with health services throughout their antenatal care, depression often goes undiagnosed. This is one area where mobile health could prove useful. We will assess the feasibility of using tablets to incorporate depression screening into antenatal pathways. We will also assess if survey layout could affect the quality of the data collected through these devices. Methods and analysis We will test the feasibility of using iPad Airs for the administration of the Whooley questions and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to pregnant women attending antenatal clinics in England. We will assess the impact of survey layout on the quality of the responses given to these screening scales using a parallel, randomised controlled study design. We will calculate the positive predictive value, the negative predictive value and the false omission rate of the Whooley questions in comparison with the EPDS. We will calculate differences in data equivalence, time needed to complete the surveys, break-off rates, data completeness and requests for help between the 2 experimental groups: using all questions in one screen and navigation by vertical scrolling, or a single question per screen and navigation by multiple pages. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee South East Coast—Surrey. Our findings will be disseminated through academic peer-reviewed publications, conferences and discussion with peers.</p

Smartphone and tablet self management apps for asthma

Background Asthma is one of the most common long-term conditions worldwide, which places considerable pressure on patients, communities and health systems. The major international clinical guidelines now recommend the inclusion of self management programmes in the routine management of patients with asthma. These programmes have been associated with improved outcomes in patients with asthma. However, the implementation of self management programmes in clinical practice, and their uptake by patients, is still poor. Recent developments in mobile technology, such as smartphone and tablet computer apps, could help develop a platform for the delivery of self management interventions that are highly customisable, low-cost and easily accessible. Objectives To assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of using smartphone and tablet apps to facilitate the self management of individuals with asthma. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register (CAGR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, GlobalHealth Library, Compendex/Inspec/Referex, IEEEXplore, ACMDigital Library, CiteSeerx and CAB abstracts via Web of Knowledge. We also searched registers of current and ongoing trials and the grey literature. We checked the reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for additional references. We searched for studies published from 2000 onwards. The latest search was run in June 2013. Selection criteria We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared self management interventions for patients with cliniciandiagnosed asthma delivered via smartphone apps to self management interventions delivered via traditional methods (e.g. paper-based asthma diaries). Data collection and analysis We used standard methods expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Our primary outcomes were symptom scores; frequency of healthcare visits due to asthma exacerbations or complications and health-related quality of life. Main results We included two RCTs with a total of 408 participants. We found no cluster RCTs, controlled before and after studies or interrupted time series studies that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Both RCTs evaluated the effect of a mobile phone-based asthma self management intervention on asthma control by comparing it to traditional, paper-based asthma self management. One study allowed participants to keep daily entries of their asthma symptoms, asthma medication usage, peak flow readings and peak flow variability on their mobile phone, from which their level of asthma control was calculated remotely and displayed together with the corresponding asthma self management recommendations. In the other study, participants recorded the same readings twice daily, and they received immediate selfmanagement feedback in the form of a three-colour traffic light display on their phones. Participants falling into the amber zone of their action plan twice, or into the red zone once, received a phone call from an asthma nurse who enquired about the reasons for their uncontrolled asthma. We did not conduct a meta-analysis of the data extracted due to the considerable degree of heterogeneity between these studies. Instead we adopted a narrative synthesis approach. Overall, the results were inconclusive and we judged the evidence to have a GRADE rating of low quality because further evidence is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. In addition, there was not enough information in one of the included studies to assess the risk of bias for themajority of the domains. Although the other included study was methodologically rigorous, it was not possible to blind participants or personnel in the study. Moreover, there are concerns in both studies in relation to attrition bias and other sources of bias. One study showed that the use of a smartphone app for the delivery of an asthma self management programme had no statistically significant effect on asthma symptom scores (mean difference (MD) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.25), asthma-related quality of life (MD of mean scores 0.02, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.39), unscheduled visits to the emergency department (OR 7.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 140.76) or frequency of hospital admissions (odds ratio (OR) 3.07, 95% CI 0.32 to 29.83). The other included study found that the use of a smartphone app resulted in higher asthma-related quality of life scores at six-month follow-up (MD5.50, 95%CI 1.48 to 9.52 for the physical component score of the SF-12 questionnaire; MD 6.00, 95% CI 2.51 to 9.49 for the mental component score of the SF-12 questionnaire), improved lung function (PEFR) at four (MD 27.80, 95% CI 4.51 to 51.09), five (MD 31.40, 95% CI 8.51 to 54.29) and six months (MD 39.20, 95% CI 16.58 to 61.82), and reduced visits to the emergency department due to asthmarelated complications (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.99). Both studies failed to find any statistical differences in terms of adherence to the intervention and occurrence of other asthma-related complications. Authors’ conclusions The current evidence base is not sufficient to advise clinical practitioners, policy-makers and the general public with regards to the use of smartphone and tablet computer apps for the delivery of asthma selfmanagement programmes. In order to understand the efficacy of apps as standalone interventions, future research should attempt to minimise the differential clinical management of patients between control and intervention groups. Those studies evaluating apps as part of complex, multicomponent interventions, should attempt to tease out the relative contribution of each intervention component. Consideration of the theoretical constructs used to inform the development of the intervention would help to achieve this goal. Finally, researchers should also take into account: the role of ancillary components in moderating the observed effects, the seasonal nature of asthma and long-term adherence to self management practices.</p

Smartphone and tablet self management apps for asthma

Background Asthma is one of the most common long-term conditions worldwide, which places considerable pressure on patients, communities and health systems. The major international clinical guidelines now recommend the inclusion of self management programmes in the routine management of patients with asthma. These programmes have been associated with improved outcomes in patients with asthma. However, the implementation of self management programmes in clinical practice, and their uptake by patients, is still poor. Recent developments in mobile technology, such as smartphone and tablet computer apps, could help develop a platform for the delivery of self management interventions that are highly customisable, low-cost and easily accessible. Objectives To assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of using smartphone and tablet apps to facilitate the self management of individuals with asthma. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register (CAGR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, GlobalHealth Library, Compendex/Inspec/Referex, IEEEXplore, ACMDigital Library, CiteSeerx and CAB abstracts via Web of Knowledge. We also searched registers of current and ongoing trials and the grey literature. We checked the reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for additional references. We searched for studies published from 2000 onwards. The latest search was run in June 2013. Selection criteria We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared self management interventions for patients with cliniciandiagnosed asthma delivered via smartphone apps to self management interventions delivered via traditional methods (e.g. paper-based asthma diaries). Data collection and analysis We used standard methods expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Our primary outcomes were symptom scores; frequency of healthcare visits due to asthma exacerbations or complications and health-related quality of life. Main results We included two RCTs with a total of 408 participants. We found no cluster RCTs, controlled before and after studies or interrupted time series studies that met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Both RCTs evaluated the effect of a mobile phone-based asthma self management intervention on asthma control by comparing it to traditional, paper-based asthma self management. One study allowed participants to keep daily entries of their asthma symptoms, asthma medication usage, peak flow readings and peak flow variability on their mobile phone, from which their level of asthma control was calculated remotely and displayed together with the corresponding asthma self management recommendations. In the other study, participants recorded the same readings twice daily, and they received immediate selfmanagement feedback in the form of a three-colour traffic light display on their phones. Participants falling into the amber zone of their action plan twice, or into the red zone once, received a phone call from an asthma nurse who enquired about the reasons for their uncontrolled asthma. We did not conduct a meta-analysis of the data extracted due to the considerable degree of heterogeneity between these studies. Instead we adopted a narrative synthesis approach. Overall, the results were inconclusive and we judged the evidence to have a GRADE rating of low quality because further evidence is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. In addition, there was not enough information in one of the included studies to assess the risk of bias for themajority of the domains. Although the other included study was methodologically rigorous, it was not possible to blind participants or personnel in the study. Moreover, there are concerns in both studies in relation to attrition bias and other sources of bias. One study showed that the use of a smartphone app for the delivery of an asthma self management programme had no statistically significant effect on asthma symptom scores (mean difference (MD) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.25), asthma-related quality of life (MD of mean scores 0.02, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.39), unscheduled visits to the emergency department (OR 7.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 140.76) or frequency of hospital admissions (odds ratio (OR) 3.07, 95% CI 0.32 to 29.83). The other included study found that the use of a smartphone app resulted in higher asthma-related quality of life scores at six-month follow-up (MD5.50, 95%CI 1.48 to 9.52 for the physical component score of the SF-12 questionnaire; MD 6.00, 95% CI 2.51 to 9.49 for the mental component score of the SF-12 questionnaire), improved lung function (PEFR) at four (MD 27.80, 95% CI 4.51 to 51.09), five (MD 31.40, 95% CI 8.51 to 54.29) and six months (MD 39.20, 95% CI 16.58 to 61.82), and reduced visits to the emergency department due to asthmarelated complications (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.99). Both studies failed to find any statistical differences in terms of adherence to the intervention and occurrence of other asthma-related complications. Authors’ conclusions The current evidence base is not sufficient to advise clinical practitioners, policy-makers and the general public with regards to the use of smartphone and tablet computer apps for the delivery of asthma selfmanagement programmes. In order to understand the efficacy of apps as standalone interventions, future research should attempt to minimise the differential clinical management of patients between control and intervention groups. Those studies evaluating apps as part of complex, multicomponent interventions, should attempt to tease out the relative contribution of each intervention component. Consideration of the theoretical constructs used to inform the development of the intervention would help to achieve this goal. Finally, researchers should also take into account: the role of ancillary components in moderating the observed effects, the seasonal nature of asthma and long-term adherence to self management practices.</p

Implementation of depression screening in antenatal clinics through tablet computers: results of a feasibility study

Background: Mobile devices may facilitate depression screening in the waiting area of antenatal clinics. This can present implementation challenges, of which we focused on survey layout and technology deployment. Methods: We assessed the feasibility of using tablet computers to administer a socio-demographic survey, the Whooley questions and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to 530 pregnant women attending National Health Service (NHS) antenatal clinics across England. We randomised participants to one of two layout versions of these surveys: (i) a scrolling layout where each survey was presented on a single screen; or (ii) a paging layout where only one question appeared on the screen at any given time. Results: Overall, 85.10% of eligible pregnant women agreed to take part. Of these, 90.95% completed the study procedures. Approximately 23% of participants answered Yes to at least one Whooley question, and approximately 13% of them scored 10 points of more on the EPDS. We observed no association between survey layout and the responses given to the Whooley questions, the median EPDS scores, the number of participants at increased risk of self-harm, and the number of participants asking for technical assistance. However, we observed a difference in the number of participants at each EPDS scoring interval (p = 0.008), which provide an indication of a woman’s risk of depression. A scrolling layout resulted in faster completion times (median = 4 min 46 s) than a paging layout (median = 5 min 33 s) (p = 0.024). However, the clinical significance of this difference (47.5 s) is yet to be determined. Conclusions: Tablet computers can be used for depression screening in the waiting area of antenatal clinics. This requires the careful consideration of clinical workflows, and technology-related issues such as connectivity and security. An association between survey layout and EPDS scoring intervals needs to be explored further to determine if it corresponds to a survey layout effect. Future research needs to evaluate the effect of this type of antenatal depression screening on clinical outcomes and clinic workflows.</p

Personal information and public health: Design tensions in sharing and monitoring wellbeing in pregnancy

Mobile technologies are valuable tools for the self-report of mental health and wellbeing. These systems pose many unique design challenges which have received considerable attention within HCI, including the engagement of users. However, less attention has been paid to the use of personal devices in public health. Integrating self-reported data within the context of clinical care suggests the need to design interfaces to support data management, sense-making, risk-assessment, feedback and patient-provider relationships. This paper reports on a qualitative design study for the clinical interface of a mobile application for the self-report of psychological wellbeing and depression during pregnancy. We examine the design tensions which arise in managing the expectations and informational needs of pregnant women, midwives, clinical psychologists, GPs and other health professionals with respect to a broad spectrum of wellbeing. We discuss strategies for managing these tensions in the design of technologies required to balance personal information with public health.Published versionThis research was supported by Science Foundation Ireland through grant 12/CE/I2267 to the Adapt Centre and a National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre award through the Population Health Theme

Comparison of self-administered survey questionnaire responses collected using mobile apps versus other methods

Background: Self-administered survey questionnaires are an important data collection tool in clinical practice, public health research and epidemiology. They are ideal for achieving a wide geographic coverage of the target population, dealing with sensitive topics and are less resource intensive than other data collection methods. These survey questionnaires can be delivered electronically, which can maximise the scalability and speed of data collection while reducing cost. In recent years, the use of apps running on consumer smart devices (i.e., smartphones and tablets) for this purpose has received considerable attention. However, variation in the mode of delivering a survey questionnaire could affect the quality of the responses collected. Objectives: To assess the impact that smartphone and tablet apps as a delivery mode have on the quality of survey questionnaire responses compared to any other alternative delivery mode: paper, laptop computer, tablet computer (manufactured before 2007), short message service (SMS) and plastic objects. Search methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, IEEEXplore, Web of Science, CABI: CAB Abstracts, Current Contents Connect, ACM Digital, ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, Health Management Information Consortium, the Campbell Library and CENTRAL. We also searched registers of current and ongoing clinical trials such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO)International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched the grey literature in OpenGrey, Mobile Active and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses. Lastly, we searched Google Scholar and the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. We performed all searches up to 12 and 13 April 2015. Selection criteria: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), crossover trials and paired repeated measures studies that compared the electronic delivery of self-administered survey questionnaires via a smartphone or tablet app with any other delivery mode. We included data obtained from participants completing health-related self-administered survey questionnaire, both validated and non-validated. We also included data offered by both healthy volunteers and by those with any clinical diagnosis. We included studies that reported any of the following outcomes: data equivalence; data accuracy; data completeness; response rates; differences in the time taken to complete a survey questionnaire; differences in respondent’s adherence to the original sampling protocol; and acceptability to respondents of the delivery mode. We included studies that were published in 2007 or after, as devices that became available during this time are compatible with the mobile operating system (OS) framework that focuses on apps. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies using a standardised form created for this systematic review in REDCap. They then compared their forms to reach consensus. Through an initial systematic mapping on the included studies, we identified two settings in which survey completion took place: controlled and uncontrolled. These settings differed in terms of (i) the location where surveys were completed, (ii) the frequency and intensity of sampling protocols, and (iii) the level of control over potential confounders (e.g., type of technology, level of help offered to respondents).We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence because a meta-analysis was not appropriate due to high levels of clinical and methodological diversity. We reported our findings for each outcome according to the setting in which the studies were conducted. Main results: We included 14 studies (15 records) with a total of 2275 participants; although we included only 2272 participants in the final analyses as there were missing data for three participants from one included study. Regarding data equivalence, in both controlled and uncontrolled settings, the included studies found no significant differences in the mean overall scores between apps and other delivery modes, and that all correlation coefficients exceeded the recommended thresholds for data equivalence. Concerning the time taken to complete a survey questionnaire in a controlled setting, one study found that an app was faster than paper, whereas the other study did not find a significant difference between the two delivery modes. In an uncontrolled setting, one study found that an app was faster than SMS. Data completeness and adherence to sampling protocols were only reported in uncontrolled settings. Regarding the former, an app was found to result in more complete records than paper, and in significantly more data entries than an SMS-based survey questionnaire. Regarding adherence to the sampling protocol, apps may be better than paper but no different from SMS. We identified multiple definitions of acceptability to respondents, with inconclusive results: preference; ease of use; willingness to use a delivery mode; satisfaction; effectiveness of the system informativeness; perceived time taken to complete the survey questionnaire; perceived benefit of a delivery mode; perceived usefulness of a delivery mode; perceived ability to complete a survey questionnaire; maximum length of time that participants would be willing to use a delivery mode; and reactivity to the delivery mode and its successful integration into respondents’ daily routine. Finally, regardless of the study setting, none of the included studies reported data accuracy or response rates. Authors’ conclusions: Our results, based on a narrative synthesis of the evidence, suggest that apps might not affect data equivalence as long as the intended clinical application of the survey questionnaire, its intended frequency of administration and the setting in which it was validated remain unchanged. There were no data on data accuracy or response rates, and findings on the time taken to complete a self-administered survey questionnaire were contradictory. Furthermore, although apps might improve data completeness, there is not enough evidence to assess their impact on adherence to sampling protocols. None of the included studies assessed how elements of user interaction design, survey questionnaire design and intervention design might influence mode effects. Those conducting research in public health and epidemiology should not assume that mode effects relevant to other delivery modes apply to apps running on consumer smart devices. Those conducting methodological research might wish to explore the issues highlighted by this systematic review

Revista de la Asociación Venezolana de Derecho Marítimo. Nr 17 – 6 De La Segunda Etapa

Editors: Cristina Mujica Perret-Gentil; Juan José Itriago Pérez; Ricardo Maldonado Pinto; Argenis Rodríguez; José Antonio Graterol Diepa; Benjamín Cordero Cote La segunda etapa de la revista de la Asociación Marítima Venezolana busca, a través de la participación de articulistas venezolanos y extranjeros, examinar los problemas marítimos tanto de una perspectiva local como universal, a través de ensayos, que se ubican en la sección de doctrina, como de comentarios que se encuentran en la sección de actualidad

Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction.

Background Health systems worldwide are facing shortages in health professional workforce. Several studies have demonstrated the direct correlation between the availability of health workers, coverage of health services, and population health outcomes. To address this shortage, online eLearning is increasingly being adopted in health professionals’ education. To inform policy–making, in online eLearning, we need to determine its effectiveness. Methods We performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of online eLearning through a comprehensive search of the major databases for randomised controlled trials that compared online eLearning to traditional learning or alternative learning methods. The search period was from January 2000 to August 2013. We included articles which primarily focused on students' knowledge, skills, satisfaction and attitudes toward eLearning and cost-effectiveness and adverse effects as secondary outcomes. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. Due to significant heterogeneity among the included studies, we presented our results as a narrative synthesis. Findings Fifty–nine studies, including 6750 students enrolled in medicine, dentistry, nursing, physical therapy and pharmacy studies, met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the 50 studies testing knowledge gains found significantly higher gains in the online eLearning intervention groups compared to traditional learning, whereas 27 did not detect significant differences or found mixed results. Eleven studies did not test for differences. Six studies detected significantly higher skill gains in the online eLearning intervention groups, whilst 3 other studies testing skill gains did not detect differences between groups and 1 study showed mixed results. Twelve studies tested students' attitudes, of which 8 studies showed no differences in attitudes or preferences for online eLearning. Students' satisfaction was measured in 29 studies, 4 studies showed higher satisfaction for online eLearning and 20 studies showed no difference in satisfaction between online eLearning and traditional learning. Risk of bias was high for several of the included studies. Conclusion The current evidence base suggests that online eLearning is equivalent, possibly superior to traditional learning. These findings present a potential incentive for policy makers to cautiously encourage its adoption, while respecting the heterogeneity among the studies.</p