Pages Menu

Posted on Jul 30, 2013 in Letters | 0 comments

Preliminary study on use of mobile phone by interns to answer pager messages

 


Dhara N. Perera1

1Dr. MBBS, Bsc. (Hons), House Medical Officer – Eastern Health, Victoria; James Cook University, Queensland, Australia

Corresponding Author: dharanalika@gmail.com

Journal MTM 2:2:24–30, 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.7309/jmtm.2.2.6


Background: Improved communications within the healthcare sector is imperative to enabling increased clinical efficiency and enhanced quality of patient care. Mobile phone use has been demonstrated to enhance clinical practice by improving communication between physicians, junior medical staff and other healthcare members.

Aims: This study aims to assess use of personal mobile phones to answer pager messages (use versus non-use) among Intern medical officers.

Methods: A literature search was performed. A survey instrument was designed to identify intern medical officers who used their mobile phones to answer pager messages and those who did not. 12 intern medical officers were surveyed. Verbal consent was obtained. Following completion of the instrument, when necessary, participants were asked to clarify their comments.

Results: Among the 12 intern medical officers, 8 intern medical officers (67%) used their personal mobile phone to answer pager messages. Main reasons highlighted were convenience, hospital phone accessibility and time-saving. Reasons for non-use by 33% participants were to keep work and private calls separate and not wishing to pay for work-related calls.

Conclusions: Those junior medical officers who answered pager messages using their mobile phone found it beneficial due to increased productivity. Those who did not chose to do so due to privacy and cost. Further validation with larger scale randomized control studies in this field are required.


Read More

Posted on Jul 30, 2013 in News | 1 comment

Volume 2 Issue 2

 


The Editorial Board at the Journal of Mobile Technology in Medicine is proud to present Volume 2, Issue 2, published in July 2013. Mobile technology in Medicine is a rapidly developing area, and we hope to continue accelerating research in the field. We look forward to your submissions for Issue 3.

Editorial


001 Unusual Utilisation of Mobile Technology in Medicine
R. Halim

Read More

Posted on Jul 24, 2013 in Editorial | 0 comments

Unusual utilisation of mobile technology in medicine


Rafsan Halim1

1Multimedia & News Editor. Journal of Mobile Technology in Medicine, Australia

Corresponding Author: raffy@journalmtm.com

Journal MTM 2:2:1-2, 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.7309/jmtm.2.1.1


The popularity of mobile technology has grown rapidly over the last few years1 and the integration of mHealth is transitioning from a curiosity to an accepted part of health-care delivery. With the growing number of mHealth applications, systematic reviews have highlighted limitations in evidence for their benefits2. Despite the paucity of high-quality evidence, the unpublished and grey literature is littered with excellent examples of innovative applications and implementations of mHealth that may benefit patients and be of interest for future research. This has spurred interest from developers to think “outside the box” when trying to solve healthcare issues. We bring to the reader’s attention some of these ‘unusual’ applications and the exciting potential offered by new developments.

With iPhone adoption being as high as 59% amongst anaesthetists3, it is a field that ripe for interesting applications of mobile technology. Like other specialties, there are an extensive number of apps and attachable peripherals for the device35 . One particularly innovative use of the device involves the utility of the accelerometer built into the phone6. Reversal from neuromuscular blockade is best measured with a Train-of-four ratio technique, which requires a nerve stimulator and a measurement device for the force generated, such as an accelerometer7. The nerve stimulator causes a short burst of muscle twitches the force of which is related to the degree of muscle paralysis7. Whilst nerve stimulators are easily accessible, accelerometers are generally more difficult to access in the clinical setting. By combining the built in accelerometer in the iPhone along with the iSeismology app (Figure 1), clinicians have developed an alternative way of measuring the aforementioned ratio6.

Figure 1: Nerve stimulator and iSeismology app being used to check Train of Four ratio (6)

Recent interest in augmented reality (AR) technology have resulted in several novel applications. DoctorMole™ is a dermatology smartphone app that aims to aid the assessment of skin moles and diagnosing malignancies. The app can assess a mole through the phones camera and analyse the image via an algorithm for symmetry, border, colour & diameter to estimate the risk of a suspicious lesion being malignant8. Whilst such applications have been shown to have varying degrees of accuracy, potentially resulting in incorrect diagnoses9, it serves as an example for the future potential for AR use.

AR is also being utilised for medical education. The newly unveiled Google Glass™ has featured prominently in technology news and has now been utilised during surgery. A percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy was performed by a surgeon with the live video feed used to educate doctors in training on how to perform the procedure. The device allowed for an “operator view” and the sharing of the endoscopic view as well to enable a better understanding of the procedure for the trainee10.

One of the most unusual applications that has been reported involves the development of highly specialised patient slippers. Termed “smart slippers,” these devices use pressure sensors to analyse gait and identify possible medical issues or high falls risk. The device would then be able to alert the patient’s clinician of such risks or falls via a transmitter11.

These imaginative and unusual applications of mobile technology highlight the potential for further development in the field of mHealth. Furthermore, they help spark the creativity that is essential to such novel implementations of mHealth that will one day become mainstream. We recognise that there will be an inherent limitation in the amount of clinical data available with such developments in the early phases of development, however providing robust clinical data to support the use of any medical technology should be the ultimate endpoint of development. Here at the Journal of Mobile technology in Medicine, we encourage sharing of these new developments with other mHealth researchers through our news section, and eventually with original research data published in the journal.

References

1. Ozdalga E, Ozdalga A, Ahuja N. The smartphone in medicine: a review of current and potential use among physicians and students. J Med Internet Res 2012;14:e128.

2. Free C, Phillips G, Galli L, et al. The Effectiveness of Mobile-Health Technology-Based Health Behaviour Change or Disease Management Interventions for Health Care Consumers: A Systematic Review. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001362.

3. Dasari KB, White SM, Pateman J. Survey of iPhone usage among anaesthetists in England. Anaesthesia 2011;66:630-1.

4. Cabalag C. The (Ultra)sound of Things to Come. JournalMTM 2012;1:5-7.

5. Mosa ASM, Yoo I, Sheets L. A Systematic Review of Healthcare Applications for Smartphones. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012;12:67.

6. Langford R.iPhone for monitoring neuromuscular function. Anaesthesia 2012;67:552-3.

7. Pharmacology and Physiology in Anesthetic Practice 4(null) ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

8. Banova B. The Future of Mobile Technology in Medicine: Innovative Medical Apps. medcitynews.com.2013; http://medcitynews.com/2013/04/the-future-of-mobile-technology-in-medicine-innovative-medical-apps/ (accessed 5 Jun2013).

9. Wolf JA, Moreau JF, Akilov O, et al.  Diagnostic inaccuracy of smartphone applications for melanoma detection. JAMA Dermatol 2013;149:422-6.

10. Grossmann R. OK Glass: Hand me the Scalpel Please … Google Glass During Surgery. @ZGJR Blog. 2013; http://rgrosssz.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/ok-glass-pass-me-the-scalpel-please-googleglass-during-surgery/ (accessed 21 Jun2013).

11. Smar Slippers. Foot-Signature Telemetry in insole to detect or even provent falls. At&T Innovation Space. 2009; http://www.attinnovationspace.com/innovation/story/a7619600 (accessed 20 Jun2013).

Read More

Posted on Jul 16, 2019 in Original Article | 0 comments

Access and Preferences for Mobile Technology among Diverse Hepatitis C Patients: Implications for Expanding Treatment Care

Julie Beaulac1,2, Louise Balfour1,2, Kim Corace2, Mark Kaluzienski3, Curtis Cooper2,3,4

1Department of Psychology, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada;

2Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON;

3Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa;

4The Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa

Corresponding Author: jbeaulac@toh.on.ca

Journal MTM 8:1:11–19, 2019

doi:10.7309/jmtm.8.1.2


Background: Mobile technology interventions present opportunities for enhanced patient engagement and outcomes.

Aims: To assess the feasibility and patient attitudes toward using mobile technology in HCV care.

Methods: Cross-sectional survey data were collected from HCV patients (N=115) at two sites, an academic hospital-based outpatient viral HCV program (n= 92) and a mostly low SES community-based site (n = 23). Measures included demographics, HCV disease status and risk factors, and mobile technology access and preferences. Differences in mobile technology access, use, and preferences by treatment site, treatment experience, ethnicity, gender, education level, and income level were assessed by Mann-Whitney and chi-square tests.

Results: 78% owned a mobile device. Of these, 69% reported having Internet access and 72% unlimited text plans. 66% reported comfort in texting. Half liked the idea of using a cell phone for HCV clinical care; others expressed dislike/uncertainty. Poorer access to mobile technology was reported by treatment naïve, community site, and non-White participants (p values ranging from 0.02 to 0.01). Respondents from the community rated lower comfort in texting (p = 0.01). A similar trend was noted for respondents with incomes below $30,000 as compared to higher income (p = 0.09). Yet, groups similarly liked the idea of using mobile technology in HCV care.

Conclusion: Mobile technology is an alternative model to augment existing HCV care. Variability in acceptability and accessibility of this approach was highlighted. Tailoring care delivery to individual patients with a particular focus on patients being served in community-based programs with low SES will be critical.

Keywords: Hepatitis C, Patient Engagement, Patient Attitudes, Cell Phones, Cross-Sectional Survey


Read More