TY - JOUR
KW - Adolescent
KW - Adult
KW - Asthma/diagnosis/therapy
KW - Attitude to Health
KW - Cellular Phone/economics
KW - Cost-Benefit Analysis
KW - Directive Counseling/methods
KW - Female
KW - Hotlines/economics/instrumentation
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Monitoring, Physiologic/economics/methods/psychology/standards
KW - Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
KW - Patient Participation/methods/psychology
KW - Primary Health Care/economics/methods/standards
KW - Quality of Life
KW - Questionnaires
KW - Remote Consultation/economics/instrumentation
KW - Self Care/instrumentation/methods
KW - Treatment Outcome
AU - D. Ryan
AU - D. Price
AU - S. D. Musgrave
AU - S. Malhotra
AU - A. J. Lee
AU - D. Ayansina
AU - A. Sheikh
AU - L. Tarassenko
AU - C. Pagliari
AU - H. Pinnock
A1 - 
AB - OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mobile phone based monitoring improves asthma control compared with standard paper based monitoring strategies. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial with cost effectiveness analysis. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 288 adolescents and adults with poorly controlled asthma (asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) score >/= 1.5) from 32 practices. INTERVENTION: Participants were centrally randomised to twice daily recording and mobile phone based transmission of symptoms, drug use, and peak flow with immediate feedback prompting action according to an agreed plan or paper based monitoring. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in scores on asthma control questionnaire and self efficacy (knowledge, attitude, and self efficacy asthma questionnaire (KASE-AQ)) at six months after randomisation. Assessment of outcomes was blinded. Analysis was on an intention to treat basis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the change in asthma control or self efficacy between the two groups (ACQ: mean change 0.75 in mobile group v 0.73 in paper group, mean difference in change -0.02 (95% confidence interval -0.23 to 0.19); KASE-AQ score: mean change -4.4 v -2.4, mean difference 2.0 (-0.3 to 4.2)). The numbers of patients who had acute exacerbations, steroid courses, and unscheduled consultations were similar in both groups, with similar healthcare costs. Overall, the mobile phone service was more expensive because of the expenses of telemonitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile technology does not improve asthma control or increase self efficacy compared with paper based monitoring when both groups received clinical care to guidelines standards. The mobile technology was not cost effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT00512837.
BT - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
C5 - HIT & Telehealth
CY - England
DO - 10.1136/bmj.e1756
JF - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mobile phone based monitoring improves asthma control compared with standard paper based monitoring strategies. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial with cost effectiveness analysis. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 288 adolescents and adults with poorly controlled asthma (asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) score >/= 1.5) from 32 practices. INTERVENTION: Participants were centrally randomised to twice daily recording and mobile phone based transmission of symptoms, drug use, and peak flow with immediate feedback prompting action according to an agreed plan or paper based monitoring. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in scores on asthma control questionnaire and self efficacy (knowledge, attitude, and self efficacy asthma questionnaire (KASE-AQ)) at six months after randomisation. Assessment of outcomes was blinded. Analysis was on an intention to treat basis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the change in asthma control or self efficacy between the two groups (ACQ: mean change 0.75 in mobile group v 0.73 in paper group, mean difference in change -0.02 (95% confidence interval -0.23 to 0.19); KASE-AQ score: mean change -4.4 v -2.4, mean difference 2.0 (-0.3 to 4.2)). The numbers of patients who had acute exacerbations, steroid courses, and unscheduled consultations were similar in both groups, with similar healthcare costs. Overall, the mobile phone service was more expensive because of the expenses of telemonitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile technology does not improve asthma control or increase self efficacy compared with paper based monitoring when both groups received clinical care to guidelines standards. The mobile technology was not cost effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT00512837.
PP - England
PY - 2012
SN - 1756-1833; 0959-535X
T1 - Clinical and cost effectiveness of mobile phone supported self monitoring of asthma: multicentre randomised controlled trial
T2 - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
TI - Clinical and cost effectiveness of mobile phone supported self monitoring of asthma: multicentre randomised controlled trial
U1 - HIT & Telehealth
U2 - 22446569
U3 - 10.1136/bmj.e1756
VL - 344
VO - 1756-1833; 0959-535X
Y1 - 2012
ER -