JMIR mHealth and uHealth (Sep 2019)

Comparison of On-Site Versus Remote Mobile Device Support in the Framingham Heart Study Using the Health eHeart Study for Digital Follow-up: Randomized Pilot Study Set Within an Observational Study Design

  • Spartano, Nicole L,
  • Lin, Honghuang,
  • Sun, Fangui,
  • Lunetta, Kathryn L,
  • Trinquart, Ludovic,
  • Valentino, Maureen,
  • Manders, Emily S,
  • Pletcher, Mark J,
  • Marcus, Gregory M,
  • McManus, David D,
  • Benjamin, Emelia J,
  • Fox, Caroline S,
  • Olgin, Jeffrey E,
  • Murabito, Joanne M

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2196/13238
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 7, no. 9
p. e13238

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundNew electronic cohort (e-Cohort) study designs provide resource-effective methods for collecting participant data. It is unclear if implementing an e-Cohort study without direct, in-person participant contact can achieve successful participation rates. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare 2 distinct enrollment methods for setting up mobile health (mHealth) devices and to assess the ongoing adherence to device use in an e-Cohort pilot study. MethodsWe coenrolled participants from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) into the FHS–Health eHeart (HeH) pilot study, a digital cohort with infrastructure for collecting mHealth data. FHS participants who had an email address and smartphone were randomized to our FHS-HeH pilot study into 1 of 2 study arms: remote versus on-site support. We oversampled older adults (age ≥65 years), with a target of enrolling 20% of our sample as older adults. In the remote arm, participants received an email containing a link to enrollment website and, upon enrollment, were sent 4 smartphone-connectable sensor devices. Participants in the on-site arm were invited to visit an in-person FHS facility and were provided in-person support for enrollment and connecting the devices. Device data were tracked for at least 5 months. ResultsCompared with the individuals who declined, individuals who consented to our pilot study (on-site, n=101; remote, n=93) were more likely to be women, highly educated, and younger. In the on-site arm, the connection and initial use of devices was ≥20% higher than the remote arm (mean percent difference was 25% [95% CI 17-35] for activity monitor, 22% [95% CI 12-32] for blood pressure cuff, 20% [95% CI 10-30] for scale, and 43% [95% CI 30-55] for electrocardiogram), with device connection rates in the on-site arm of 99%, 95%, 95%, and 84%. Once connected, continued device use over the 5-month study period was similar between the study arms. ConclusionsOur pilot study demonstrated that the deployment of mobile devices among middle-aged and older adults in the context of an on-site clinic visit was associated with higher initial rates of device use as compared with offering only remote support. Once connected, the device use was similar in both groups.