Development and validation of a mobile application prototype for postoperative cardiac surgery.
Gabriele Cardoso Gonçalves Alves, Fabiola Leticia Damascena Amador, Vagner Rogério Dos Santos and 1 others
PMID 39383433WHAT IT FOUND
Portuguese cardiac surgery patients and experts judged an app prototype understandable and relevant for wound care, medicines, activity, diet, and warning signs.
It is not yet evidence that the app improves recovery or reduces readmissions.
Key findings
01The app prototype covers wound care, medications, physical activity, sexual relations, diet, smoking and alcohol use, blood pressure control, weight, and warning signs.
02Seventeen experts rated content and appearance adequate: content agreement was 0.86 for objectives, 0.82 for structure, and 1 for relevance; appearance scores ranged from 0.94 to 1.
03Ten patients found no screens inadequate and gave an overall agreement score of 0.978, though three questions were only partially adequate.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 17 experts completed the rating, and no doctors accepted, so the expert panel was not fully multidisciplinary as planned. Only 10 patients tested the screens, and about 50% had had surgery more than 5 years ago, so the pre-test was small and may not reflect the immediate postoperative period. The screens were judged without direct interaction or usability testing, and the app was not yet programmed or clinically tested. The motivation questions did not hang together as well as the other domains, with a score of 0.687. The study did not measure recovery, readmissions, or self-care behaviour.
Declared interests
The supplied text does not report funding or conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the app improves recovery, adherence, or readmissions after cardiac surgery. The study only validated a prototype with 17 experts and 10 patients, and it did not test clinical outcomes or usability.