@article{CuperusdeKokdeAguiaretal.2022,
  author    = {Cuperus, Pauline and de Kok, D{\"o}rte and de Aguiar, Vania and Nickels, Lyndsey},
  title     = {Understanding user needs for digital aphasia therapy},
  series = {Aphasiology : an international, interdisciplinary journal},
  volume    = {37},
  journal   = {Aphasiology : an international, interdisciplinary journal},
  number    = {7},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0268-7038},
  doi       = {10.1080/02687038.2022.2066622},
  pages     = {1016 -- 1038},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background: Aphasia therapy software applications (apps) can help achieve recommendations regarding aphasia treatment intensity and duration. However, we currently know very little about speech and language therapists' (SLTs) preferences with regards to these apps. This may be problematic, as clinician acceptance of novel treatments and technology are a key factor for successful translation from research evidence to practice. Aim: This research aimed to increase our understanding of clinicians' experiences with aphasia therapy apps and their perceived barriers and facilitators to the use of aphasia apps. Furthermore, we wanted to explore the influence of some demographic factors (age, country, and SLT availability in the client's hometown) on SLTs' attitudes towards these apps. Method \& Procedures: 35 Dutch and 29 Australian SLTs completed an online survey. The survey contained 9 closed-ended questions and 3 open-ended questions. Responses to the closed-ended questions were summarised through the use of descriptive statistics. The responses to the open questions were analysed and coded into recurring themes that were derived from the data. Logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the relationship between the demographic variables and the responses to the closed-ended questions. Outcomes \& results: Participants were overwhelmingly positive about aphasia therapy apps and saw the potential for their clients to use apps independently. As facilitators of app use, participants reported accessibility and inclusion of different language modalities, while high costs, absence of a compatible device, and clients' potential computer illiteracy were listed as barriers. None of the analysed demographic factors consistently influenced differences in participants' attitudes towards aphasia therapy apps. Conclusions: The positive, extensive and insightful feedback from speech and language therapists is both useful and encouraging for app developers and aphasia researchers, and should facilitate the development of appropriate, high-quality therapy apps.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SalzwedelRabeZahnetal.2017,
  author    = {Salzwedel, Annett and Rabe, Sophie and Zahn, Thomas and Neuwirth, Julia and Eichler, Sarah and Haubold, Kathrin and Wachholz, Anne and Reibis, Rona Katharina and V{\"o}ller, Heinz},
  title     = {User Interest in Digital Health Technologies to Encourage Physical Activity},
  series = {JMIR. Mhealth \& Uhealth},
  volume    = {5},
  journal   = {JMIR. Mhealth \& Uhealth},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {JMIR Publications},
  address   = {Toronto},
  doi       = {10.2196/mhealth.7192},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Background: Although the benefits for health of physical activity (PA) are well documented, the majority of the population is unable to implement present recommendations into daily routine. Mobile health (mHealth) apps could help increase the level of PA. However, this is contingent on the interest of potential users. Objective: The aim of this study was the explorative, nuanced determination of the interest in mHealth apps with respect to PA among students and staff of a university. Methods: We conducted a Web-based survey from June to July 2015 in which students and employees from the University of Potsdam were asked about their activity level, interest in mHealth fitness apps, chronic diseases, and sociodemographic parameters. Results: A total of 1217 students (67.30\%, 819/1217; female; 26.0 years [SD 4.9]) and 485 employees (67.5\%, 327/485; female; 42.7 years [SD 11.7]) participated in the survey. The recommendation for PA (3 times per week) was not met by 70.1\% (340/485) of employees and 52.67\% (641/1217) of students. Within these groups, 53.2\% (341/641 students) and 44.2\% (150/340 employees)—independent of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and level of education or professional qualification—indicated an interest in mHealth fitness apps. Conclusions: Even in a younger, highly educated population, the majority of respondents reported an insufficient level of PA. About half of them indicated their interest in training support. This suggests that the use of personalized mobile fitness apps may become increasingly significant for a positive change of lifestyle.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{VoellerBindlNagelsetal.2022,
  author    = {V{\"o}ller, Heinz and Bindl, Dominik and Nagels, Klaus and Hofmann, Reiner and Vettorazzi, Eik and Wegscheider, Karl and Fleck, Eckart and St{\"o}rk, Stefan and Nagel, Eckhard},
  title     = {The first year of noninvasive remote telemonitoring in chronic heart failure is not cost saving but improves quality of life: the randomized controlled cardiobbeat trial},
  series = {Telemedicine and e-health},
  volume    = {28},
  journal   = {Telemedicine and e-health},
  number    = {11},
  publisher = {Liebert},
  address   = {New Rochelle},
  issn      = {1530-5627},
  doi       = {10.1089/tmj.2022.0021},
  pages     = {1613 -- 1622},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Introduction: Remote telemonitoring (RTM) for patients with chronic heart failure (HF) holds promise to improve prognosis and well-being beyond the standard of care (SoC). The CardioBBEAT trial assessed the health economic and clinical impact of an interactive bidirectional RTM system (Motiva(R)) versus SoC for patients with HF and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in Germany.Methods: This multicenter, randomized controlled trial enrolled 621 patients with HFrEF (mean age 63.0 +/- 11.5 years, 88\% men). The primary endpoint was the integrated effect of the intervention on total costs and nonhospitalized days alive after 12 months, reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs (in keuro) were based on actual charges of patients' statutory health insurance. Among secondary outcome measures were mortality and disease-specific quality of life.Results: We found a neutral effect on nonhospitalized days alive (RTM mean 341 +/- 59 days, SoC 346 +/- 45 days; p = 0.298) associated with increased total costs (RTM 18.5 +/- 39.5 keuro, SoC 12.8 +/- 22.0 keuro; p = 0.046). This yielded an ICER of -1.15 keuro/day. RTM did not impact mortality risk. All quality of life scales were consistently and meaningfully improved in the RTM group at 12 months compared to SoC (all p < 0.01).Conclusions: The first 12 months of RTM were not cost-effective compared to SoC in patients with HFrEF, but associated with a relevant improvement in disease-specific quality of life. The balanced assessment of the potential benefit of RTM requires integration of both the societal and patient perspective.ClinTrials.gov (NCT02293252).},
  language  = {en}
}