Abstract
Background
There is an increasingly diverse range of mobile apps and digital health devices available to help patients manage their health. Despite evidence for the effectiveness of such technologies, their potential has not been fully realized because adoption remains low. Such limited uptake can have direct implications for the intended benefits of these technologies.
Objective
This study aimed to understand what matters most to US military veterans when deciding whether to use digital health technologies (DHTs) such as mobile health apps or devices to manage their health and compare these factors between veterans with and without prevalent chronic physical and mental health conditions.
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from a national sample of veterans who receive care from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which was predominantly gathered as part of the last wave of a larger longitudinal data collection effort.
Results
Among respondents (n=857), 86.7% (736/849) reported currently using or having previously used ≥1 devices to manage their health, and 78.4% (639/815) also reported using either VHA or non-VHA health apps. Considerations most frequently endorsed as “very important” by veterans when deciding whether to use DHTs included receiving secure messages from their health care team about DHTs, knowing data from DHTs would be used to inform their care, and receiving recommendations from providers to use DHTs. Conversely, considerations most frequently endorsed as “not at all important” included seeing information about DHTs on social media, having community support to use DHTs, and receiving encouragement from peers to use DHTs. Considerations did not significantly differ between veterans with or without prevalent chronic health conditions; however, a greater proportion of veterans with prevalent mental health conditions reported the following considerations to be “very important:” seeing information about DHTs on social media, having community support to use DHTs, having other veterans encourage DHT use, and having help from family, friends, or other important people to use DHTs.
Conclusions
Understanding what matters most to patients when they are deciding to adopt a technology for their health can, and should, inform implementation strategies and other approaches to enhance health-related technology use. Our results suggest that, for veterans, recommendations from health care team members and knowing that the data from DHTs will be used in clinical care are more important than information from social media, community sources, or peers when deciding to use DHTs, although perceptions of importance regarding the latter may differ among patients with different conditions. Our findings suggest that communication from health care team members to patients, perhaps either in-person or electronically, could help encourage DHT adoption and use.
Keywords: digital health technology, implementation, mobile health apps, patient preferences, veterans
Introduction
Mobile apps to support health management are proliferating and can support condition self-management, health behavior tracking, and health education [1-4]. Mobile health apps can be accessed and used on or with various technology platforms and digital health–related devices, including smartphones, tablet computers, and sensor technologies like smart watches. We refer to such mobile health apps and digital health–related devices as digital health technologies (DHTs).
Evidence suggests that DHT use can positively affect health behaviors and outcomes [5-9]. Accordingly, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated health care system in the United States, is championing incorporation of DHTs into care. However, adoption and use of DHTs remain limited, which are among the most significant problems facing DHTs [10-17]. Prominent theoretical frameworks posit various constructs that can influence uptake of different technologies, including, but not limited to, perceptions of ease of use, usefulness, the opinions of others, and existing support for technology use, although the relative importance of such factors varies in different contexts [18-20].
For DHTs to realize their potential, efforts to bolster adoption are needed. In implementation research, there is increasing recognition of the importance of stakeholder-informed strategies to support intervention adoption [21-24], that is, it is key to understand what stakeholders (in this case, patients who use technology for health) think the most effective ways are for promoting adoption and use of interventions and to design and tailor implementation strategies accordingly [25].
Our objective in this evaluation was to understand what matters most to veterans who are known technology users when deciding whether to use DHTs and to compare perceptions between those with and without prevalent chronic physical and mental health conditions to inform the development of future implementation strategies for DHTs.
Methods
Design
In partnership with researchers from the VHA’s Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Program, the VHA Office of Connected Care, responsible for the VHA’s digital health strategy, launched the Veterans Engagement with Technology Collaborative (VET-C) cohort in 2017. A longitudinal data collection effort, the VET-C cohort combines veteran survey data collected over 3 timepoints with VHA administrative records [26]. The goal of the cohort is to support veteran engagement in the evaluation of VHA patient-facing technologies [26]. This manuscript reports the results of a cross-sectional analysis of data gathered predominantly as part of the third round of data collection efforts from the VET-C cohort to understand perspectives on what is most important to veterans when deciding whether to use DHTs, with the goal to inform implementation strategies that the VHA can leverage to support DHT adoption.
Participants
The VET-C cohort consists of a national sample of veterans who received care from 14 geographically distinct VHA facilities. These sites were selected purposefully to represent VHA facilities with high use of secure messaging supported by My HealtheVet (the VHA’s web-based patient portal), diverse segments of the veteran population, hubs for VHA research, and experience with technology rollouts. Data collection did not focus on a specific clinical setting. Veterans invited to the cohort were active users of VHA health care and technology users, defined as owning a cellular phone and having sent ≥5 secure messages through My HealtheVet in the previous year [26,27].
VET-C surveys were collected between 2017-2018, 2019-2020, and 2021-2022. As noted above, data for the variables reported in this analysis were primarily gathered in the third round of VET-C data collection from veterans who had responded to the first 2 rounds of surveys. Information about the first 2 rounds of VET-C survey data collection is published elsewhere [26-28].
Data Collection
Our recruitment procedures comprised several steps. Veterans were first mailed a copy of the third round VET-C survey along with a cover letter and postage-paid reply envelope. A follow-up mailing was then sent to nonrespondents approximately 4 weeks after the initial mailing to facilitate response. The survey was designed iteratively based on veteran feedback and Office of Connected Care leadership input and included a combination of validated items and customized questions.
Measures
Veterans were asked to report their sex, age, race and ethnicity, highest level of education, relationship status, self-perceived physical and mental health status [29], extent of health care received through the VHA (compared to community settings), and typical travel time (in minutes) from home to their VHA primary care doctor.
We further asked veterans to report technology access and ownership, technology use [30], and whether they are mobile health app users and health-related digital device users. We also asked veterans to report how easy it is for them to communicate with their VHA health care team.
We collected information on perceptions of what is important when deciding whether to use technology for health by asking veterans to rate various considerations as “very important,” “somewhat important,” or “not at all important” when deciding whether to use DHTs to help them manage their health. Response options included considerations at multiple levels, including those related to the health care system, the community, the patient themselves, and an open-ended “other” response option where respondents could list and rate considerations not otherwise included among the closed-ended response options.
We supplemented survey data with administrative data to identify chronic physical and mental health conditions from the prior 5 years that are prevalent among veterans and to fill in missing demographic data as necessary. We also used administrative data to calculate a prior-year comorbidity index score using the hierarchical condition community score [31,32]. The hierarchical condition community score factors in a person’s diagnoses, eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid services, sex, and age and commonly ranges from 0.9-1.7, with scores greater than 1 often interpreted as indicating poorer health [31-33].
Analyses
We used descriptive statistics to characterize survey data, and chi-square analyses to compare perceptions of what veterans consider important when deciding whether to use technology for health, comparing those with and without prevalent chronic health conditions (ie, diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease) and prevalent mental health conditions (ie, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder). Analyses were conducted in Stata MP (version 14.2; StataCorp).
Ethical Considerations
This work was reviewed by relevant VHA Institutional Review Boards and designated as program evaluation for quality improvement purposes, exempting it from further oversight (Program Guide 1200.21) [34]. Returning a survey was considered consent to participate. Data were deidentified and labeled with a unique ID number. Veterans were not compensated for their participation.
Results
Response Rate
We invited 1373 veterans to complete a third-round survey. We removed 15 veterans from the denominator because their surveys were undeliverable or they had passed away. A total of 858 (63.2%) veterans returned a survey. We removed 1 veteran with unavailable health condition data from our analytic cohort.
Sample Description
As summarized in Tables 1 and 2, survey respondents were predominantly men (750/857, 87.5%), White (762/857, 88.9%), and older than 65 years of age (602/857, 70.2%). Over half (452/853, 53%) considered themselves early technology adopters. Most (736/849, 86.7%) reported currently using or previously having used ≥1 health-related digital devices and currently or previously using either VHA or non-VHA mobile health apps (639/815, 78.4%).
Table 1.
Demographic of veteran respondents to the Veterans Engagement with Technology Collaborative cohort survey.
| Demographic | n (%) | ||
| Age (n=857) |
|
||
|
|
Aged over 65 years | 602 (70.2) | |
|
|
Aged 65 years or younger | 255 (29.8) | |
| Sex (n=857) |
|
||
|
|
Men | 750 (87.5) | |
|
|
Women | 107 (12.5) | |
| Race (n=857) | |||
|
|
White | 762 (88.9) | |
|
|
Black | 55 (6.4) | |
|
|
Other | 40 (4.7) | |
| Ethnicity (n=857) | |||
|
|
Non-Hispanic | 830 (96.9) | |
|
|
Hispanic | 27 (3.3) | |
| Relationship status (n=826) | |||
|
|
In a relationship | 610 (73.8) | |
|
|
Not in a relationship | 216 (26.2) | |
| Education status (n=851) | |||
|
|
At least some college or vocational school | 745 (87.5) | |
|
|
Less than some college or vocational school | 106 (12.5) | |
| Socioeconomic status (n=775) | |||
|
|
Not very hard to pay for basicsa | 586 (75.6) | |
|
|
Hard to pay for basics | 189 (24.4) | |
| Location of medical care (n=856) | |||
|
|
Mostly receives medical care in the VHAb | 616 (72) | |
|
|
Does not mostly receive medical care in the VHA | 240 (28) | |
| Time to VHA primary care doctor’s office (n=856) | |||
|
|
<60 min | 726 (84.8) | |
|
|
>60 min | 130 (15.2) | |
| Perceived physical health status (n=853) | |||
|
|
Good or very good or excellent | 596 (69.9) | |
|
|
Fair or poor | 257 (30.1) | |
| Perceived mental health status (n=855) | |||
|
|
Good or very good or excellent | 694 (81.2) | |
|
|
Fair or poor | 161 (18.8) | |
| Ease of communication (n=850) | |||
|
|
Very easy or easy | 664 (78.1) | |
|
|
Very difficult or difficult or neutral | 186 (21.9) | |
| Hierarchical condition community score (n=857), mean (SD) | 1.7 (1.3) | ||
| Technology ownership (n=849) | |||
|
|
Desktop or laptop computer | 793 (93.4) | |
|
|
Smartphone | 761 (89.6) | |
|
|
Tablet computer | 448 (52.8) | |
| Technology adoption (n=853) | |||
|
|
Early technology adopter | 452 (53) | |
|
|
Not an early technology adopter | 401 (47) | |
| Comfort using computers (n=852) |
|
||
|
|
Very comfortable or confident using computers | 759 (89.1) | |
|
|
Not very comfortable or confident using computers | 93 (10.9) | |
| Self-reported mobile health app user? (n=815) |
|
||
|
|
Yes | 639 (78.4) | |
|
|
No | 176 (21.6) | |
| Self-reported health-related digital device user? (n=849) |
|
||
|
|
Yes | 736 (86.7) | |
|
|
No | 113 (13.3) | |
aBasics refers to essential needs like food and heating and cooling.
bVHA: Veterans Health Administration.
Table 2.
Health conditions of veteran respondents to the Veterans Engagement with Technology Collaborative cohort survey. Health conditions from only the prior 5 years are included.
| Health condition (n=857) | n (%) |
| Hypertension | 667 (77.8) |
| Osteoarthritis | 453 (52.9) |
| Anxiety disorders | 404 (47.1) |
| Diabetes | 377 (44) |
| Depression | 327 (38.2) |
| Chronic kidney disease | 257 (30) |
| Ischemic heart disease | 256 (29.9) |
| Asthma | 204 (23.8) |
| Posttraumatic stress disorder | 251 (29.3) |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 158 (18.4) |
| Peripheral vascular disease | 136 (15.9) |
| Atrial fibrillation | 130 (15.2) |
| Heart failure | 92 (10.7) |
| Prostate cancer | 65 (7.6) |
| Stroke | 56 (6.5) |
| Traumatic brain injury | 26 (3) |
| Acute myocardial infarction | 25 (2.9) |
| Lung cancer | 20 (2.3) |
| Colorectal cancer | 13 (1.5) |
Considerations When Deciding Whether to Use DHTs
Considerations most frequently endorsed as “very important” included receiving secure messages through the VHA’s My HealtheVet web-based patient portal from one’s health care team about DHTs (561/766, 73.2%), knowing that one’s health care team will use the information entered into the DHTs to inform one’s care (427/756, 56.5%), having one’s provider recommend DHTs (402/764, 52.6%), having somewhere to get help with issues using DHTs (389/760, 51.2%), and having other members of one’s health care team recommend DHTs (345/760, 45.4%). These considerations did not significantly differ between veterans with or without prevalent chronic health conditions or prevalent mental health conditions.
The considerations most frequently endorsed as “not at all important” by veterans included the following: seeing information about DHTs on social media (533/756, 70.5%); having community support through Veteran Service Organizations, churches, libraries, or other organizations (501/754, 66.4); having other veterans encourage DHT use (430/758, 56.7%); having help from family, friends, or other important people to use DHTs (315/759, 41.6%); and receiving printed information about DHTs from the VHA (201/758, 26.5%). These considerations did not significantly differ between veterans with or without prevalent chronic health conditions. However, a greater proportion of veterans with (compared to without) prevalent mental health conditions reported the following considerations to be “very important”: seeing information about DHTs on social media (those with mental health conditions: 42/428, 9.8%; those without mental health conditions: 19/328, 5.8%; χ22=6.2; P=.05); having community support through Veteran Service Organizations, churches, libraries, or other organizations to use DHTs (with: 56/427, 13.1%; without: 25/327, 7.6%; χ22=7.9; P=.02); having other veterans encourage DHT use (with: 70/429, 16.3%; without: 24/329, 7.3%; χ22=15.9; P<.001); and having help from family, friends, or other important people to use DHTs (with: 106/431, 24.6%; without: 58/328, 17.7%; χ22=6.4; P=.04). Please see Table 3 for more details.
Table 3.
Perceptions of importance regarding factors that could impact decisions about the use of digital health technologiesa among veteran respondents to the Veterans Engagement with Technology Collaborative cohort survey and comparisons of perceptions among veterans with and without prevalent chronic health conditions and prevalent mental health conditions (n=857).
| Factor | Overall, n/N (%) | Respondent has ≥1 chronic health conditionsb n/N (%) | Respondent has ≥1 mental health conditionsc n/N (%) | |||||||||||||||
| Yes (713/857) |
No (144/857) |
P | Yes (481/857) |
No (376/857) |
P | |||||||||||||
| Receiving MyHealtheVet secure messages from my VHAd health care team about them | .09 |
|
.26 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 561/766 (73.2) | 474/641 (73.9) | 87/125 (69.6) |
|
325/435 (74.7) | 236/331 (71.3) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 158/766 (20.6) | 133/641 (20.7) | 25/125 (20) |
|
81/435 (18.6) | 77/331 (23.3) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 47/766 (6.1) | 34/641 (5.3) | 13/125 (10.4) |
|
29/435 (6.7) | 18/331 (5.4) |
|
||||||||||
| Knowing that my VHA health care team members will use the information that I enter into them to inform my health care | .56 |
|
.19 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 427/756 (56.5) | 355/631 (56.3) | 72/125 (57.6) |
|
254/428 (59.3) | 173/328 (52.7) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 248/756 (32.8) | 205/631 (32.5) | 43/125 (34.4) |
|
132/428 (30.8) | 116/328 (35.4) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 81/756 (10.7) | 71/631 (11.3) | 10/125 (8) |
|
42/428 (9.8) | 39/328 (11.9) |
|
||||||||||
| Having my VHA doctor(s) recommend them to me | .24 |
|
.88 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 402/764 (52.6) | 344/638 (53.9) | 58/126 (46) |
|
230/433 (53.1) | 172/331 (52) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 274/764 (35.9) | 221/638 (34.6) | 53/126 (42.1) |
|
152/433 (35.1) | 122/331 (36.9) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 88/764 (11.5) | 73/638 (11.4) | 15/126 (11.9) |
|
51/433 (11.8) | 37/331 (11.2) |
|
||||||||||
| Having somewhere to get help if I am having issues using them | .82 |
|
.18 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 389/760 (51.2) | 322/634 (50.8) | 67/126 (53.2) |
|
232/431 (53.8) | 157/329 (47.7) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 262/760 (34.5) | 219/634 (34.5) | 43/126 (34.1) |
|
137/431 (31.8) | 125/329 (38) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 109/760 (14.3) | 93/634 (14.7) | 16/126 (12.7) |
|
62/431 (14.4) | 47/329 (14.3) |
|
||||||||||
| Having other members of my VHA clinical team recommend them to me | .11 |
|
.39 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 345/760 (45.4) | 297/635 (46.8) | 48/125 (38.4) |
|
203/429 (47.3) | 142/331 (42.9) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 307/760 (40.4) | 246/635 (38.7) | 61/125 (48.8) |
|
170/429 (39.6) | 137/331 (41.4) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 108/760 (14.2) | 92/635 (14.5) | 16/125 (12.8) |
|
56/429 (13.1) | 52/331 (15.7) |
|
||||||||||
| Having a video tutorial about how to use them | .57 |
|
.81 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 255/758 (33.6) | 208/633 (32.9) | 47/125 (37.6) |
|
146/429 (34) | 109/329 (33.1) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 315/758 (41.6) | 265/633 (41.9) | 50/125 (40) |
|
174/429 (40.6) | 141/329 (42.9) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 188/758 (24.8) | 160/633 (25.3) | 28/125 (22.4) |
|
109/429 (25.4) | 79/329 (24) |
|
||||||||||
| Having someone available to help me learn how to use them through in-person trainings | .43 |
|
.40 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 241/758 (31.8) | 202/633 (31.9) | 39/125 (31.2) |
|
144/429 (33.6) | 97/329 (29.5) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 273/758 (36) | 233/633 (36.8) | 40/125 (32) |
|
147/429 (34.3) | 126/329 (38.3) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 244/758 (32.2) | 198/633 (31.3) | 46/125 (36.8) |
|
138/429 (32.2) | 106/329 (32.2) |
|
||||||||||
| Receiving printed information about them from the VHA | .58 |
|
.37 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 231/758 (30.5) | 197/632 (31.2) | 34/126 (27) |
|
139/427 (32.6) | 92/331 (27.8) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 326/758 (43) | 271/632 (42.9) | 55/126 (43.7) |
|
179/427 (41.9) | 147/331 (44.4) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 201/758 (26.5) | 164/632 (25.9) | 37/126 (29.4) |
|
109/427 (25.5) | 92/331 (27.8) |
|
||||||||||
| Having help from family, friends, or other important people in my life to use them | .24 |
|
.04 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 164/759 (21.6) | 143/633 (22.6) | 21/126 (16.7) |
|
106/431 (24.6) | 58/328 (17.7) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 279/759 (36.8) | 226/633 (35.7) | 53/126 (42.1) |
|
146/431 (33.9) | 133/328 (40.5) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 316/759 (41.6) | 264/633 (41.7) | 52/126 (41.3) |
|
179/431 (41.5) | 137/328 (41.8) |
|
||||||||||
| Having other veterans encourage me to use them | .69 |
|
<.001 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 94/758 (12.4) | 77/634 (12.1) | 17/124 (13.7) |
|
70/429 (16.3) | 24/329 (7.3) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 234/758 (30.9) | 193/634 (30.4) | 41/124 (33.1) |
|
135/429 (31.5) | 99/329 (30.1) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 430/758 (56.7) | 364/634 (57.4) | 66/124 (53.2) |
|
224/429 (52.2) | 206/329 (62.6) |
|
||||||||||
| Having support in the community through my VSOe, church, library, or other such organizations for using them | .37 |
|
.02 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 81/754 (10.7) | 64/630 (10.2) | 17/124 (13.7) |
|
56/427 (13.1) | 25/327 (7.6) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 172/754 (22.8) | 148/630 (23.5) | 24/124 (19.4) |
|
103/427 (24.1) | 69/327 (21.1) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 501/754 (66.4) | 418/630 (66.3) | 83/124 (66.9) |
|
268/427 (62.8) | 233/327 (71.3) |
|
||||||||||
| Seeing information about them on social media | .52 |
|
.05 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 61/756 (8.1) | 48/631 (7.6) | 13/125 (10.4) |
|
42/428 (9.8) | 19/328 (5.8) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 162/756 (21.4) | 134/631 (21.2) | 28/125 (22.4) |
|
98/428 (22.9) | 64/328 (19.5) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 533/756 (70.5) | 449/631 (71.2) | 84/125 (67.2) |
|
288/428 (67.3) | 245/328 (74.7) |
|
||||||||||
| Other | .67f |
|
.34f | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Very important | 12/76 (15.8) | 10/68 (14.7) | 2/8 (25) |
|
8/40 (20) | 4/36 (11.1) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Somewhat important | 7/76 (9.2) | 7/68 (10.3) | 0/8 (0) |
|
5/40 (12.5) | 2/36 (5.6) |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Not at all important | 57/76 (75) | 51/68 (75) | 6/8 (75) |
|
27/40 (67.5) | 30/36 (83.3) |
|
||||||||||
aVHA mobile health apps, non-VHA mobile health apps, or devices.
bHypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease.
cAnxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder.
dVHA: Veterans Health Administration.
eVSO: Veteran Service Organization.
fFisher exact test P value.
Discussion
Principal Findings
Understanding what matters most to patients when deciding to use DHTs can inform the development of strategies to support their adoption and use. For veterans who receive VHA care and are known technology users, our results suggest that the most important considerations are tied to the health care system and include receiving encouragement from health care team members to use DHTs, knowing DHT data will be used in care, and having help available when using DHTs. Conversely, our results suggest that the least important considerations for veterans who use VHA care and are known technology users when deciding to use DHTs are rooted outside the health care system, including social media and encouragement and support from peers or other community members, although the veterans in our sample with prevalent mental health conditions did place more importance on these considerations. These insights can be leveraged to promote different technology platforms as part of health care services and inform efforts to ensure that implementation strategies deployed align with patient preferences and values. They also reflect the relative importance in this context of different theoretical constructs posited to influence the adoption of new technologies, including sources of social influence and the perceptions of others deemed important to an individual [18,19].
From our findings, outreach and recommendations from care team members were most frequently endorsed as very important to decisions about DHT use. These findings are consistent with previous literature that highlights the importance of health care team member encouragement to veteran use of technologies for health [12,14,35,36], and similar findings have also emerged in other published studies of other patient populations [37,38]. This trend suggests that implementation strategies intended to bolster veteran DHT adoption and use must reflect care team member involvement to be optimally impactful. This could include emphasizing care team member endorsement of specific technologies and their potential value to veterans or affirmation that care team members will use the data that veterans gather and share through these technologies to inform clinical practice, a consideration that has also been highlighted as important in literature about nonveteran populations [39].
Uniquely, our findings highlight different approaches that can be useful for outreach and recommendations and how such approaches may have differential impacts among segments of patient populations. In this sample of veterans who are known technology users, receiving secure messages about DHTs through the VHA’s web-based patient portal was the consideration most frequently endorsed as very important when deciding to use DHTs. The VHA already uses its web-based patient portal to disseminate health promotion information, including information about new technologies [12]. Using the messaging feature of a web-based patient portal may be an efficient, low-cost way for health care teams to proactively communicate with patients about technologies they think could be helpful to them.
Beyond health care team–related factors, the availability of technical support was the second most frequent consideration endorsed as very important when deciding to use DHTs. Previously published reviews have also identified difficulties using technology and tech support availability as factors influencing patient use [40,41]. Although our survey did not ask veterans whether they thought such support should be offered by the VHA, we see such help and support as services that the VHA could provide to address this need. Such services are evident in recent VHA initiatives like Veteran Health Resource Centers, which provide hands-on support within VHA facilities to veterans, their informal caregivers, and staff who are interested in using VHA technology platforms [42].
Unlike previously published studies suggesting that leveraging communities, peers, and social media may facilitate the adoption of technology for health in certain contexts [43-45], the veterans in our sample less frequently endorsed peer and community support and information shared through social media as important considerations. Although peer-, community-, and social media–based resources may represent efficient and low-cost approaches to facilitating DHT use, health care systems should work to understand patient preferences and perspectives before relying too heavily on such approaches, which may be best suited for use among certain segments of their patient populations. Patients with mental health conditions may be one such example, where strategies grounded in community and peer support are well-positioned to enhance reach and engagement with DHTs.
Limitations
The veterans in the VET-C cohort are known technology users. As such, our results may not generalize to the overall veteran population or other patient populations. This sample characteristic may also explain why receiving secure messages from one’s health care team through the VHA’s web-based patient portal was deemed such an important consideration. However, this finding parallels other findings regarding the importance that veterans place on health care team member recommendations when deciding whether to use DHTs [14,35]. Moreover, data from our sample of known technology users may not address considerations important to veterans who minimally or do not use technology when deciding to use DHTs. We must guard against overgeneralizing these findings so as not to inadvertently overlook the needs of patients for whom accessibility of care, and by extension DHTs, are formidable barriers. These groups may require alternative implementation strategies that more adequately reflect their situation [46,47]. Potentially high-impact future work could include replicating a survey similar to the one reported here with subsets of the veteran population who lack both ready access to DHTs and health care services. Cross-sectional survey data may also be influenced by recall, response, and social desirability biases. Finally, we cannot infer how our results may translate to actual technology adoption and use. Additional work is needed to develop and rigorously test implementation strategies to provide such insights.
Conclusions
Understanding what matters most to patients when deciding to use DHTs can inform strategies to enhance DHT use. This analysis represents an additional step towards foregrounding the perspective of patients as key stakeholders when designing implementation strategies to bolster adoption of health-related technology. Recommendations from health care team members and knowing their data will be used by their care team members in clinical care are more important considerations for veterans who use technology for health than information they may encounter through social media, community sources, or peers when deciding whether to adopt DHTs, although perceptions of importance regarding the latter may differ among patients with different conditions. Taken together, our results suggest that communication from health care team members to patients, perhaps either in-person or electronically, may be beneficial in many cases to promote DHT adoption and use. Future work should also examine these issues among veterans who may have a strong interest in using DHTs but are not yet DHT users and face various barriers to their adoption.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Connected Care, and Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Program (grant PEC 15-470 to TPH). JML was supported by an NIMH Mentored Patient-Oriented Career Development Award (grant K23MH120324). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.
Abbreviations
- DHT
digital health technology
- VET-C
Veterans Engagement with Technology Collaborative
- VHA
Veterans Health Administration
Data Availability
The data used for this analysis are not permitted to leave the VHA firewall without a data use agreement. This limitation is consistent with other work based on VHA data. However, VHA data are made freely available to investigators behind the Department of Veterans Affairs’ firewall with appropriate documentation.
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
References
- 1.Xu W, Liu Y. mHealthApps: a repository and database of mobile health apps. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Mar 18;3(1):e28. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.4026. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2015/1/e28/ v3i1e28 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Vaidya A. TechTarget. 2022. [2023-12-14]. https://www.techtarget.com/virtualhealthcare/feature/Key-Features-of-mHealth-Apps-Trends-in-Use .
- 3.Jake-Schoffman DE, Silfee VJ, Waring ME, Boudreaux ED, Sadasivam RS, Mullen SP, Carey JL, Hayes RB, Ding EY, Bennett GG, Pagoto SL. Methods for evaluating the content, usability, and efficacy of commercial mobile health apps. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Dec 18;5(12):e190. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.8758. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2017/12/e190/ v5i12e190 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Boulos MNK, Brewer AC, Karimkhani C, Buller DB, Dellavalle RP. Mobile medical and health apps: state of the art, concerns, regulatory control and certification. Online J Public Health Inform. 2014;5(3):229. doi: 10.5210/ojphi.v5i3.4814. https://doi.org/10.5210/ojphi.v5i3.4814 .ojphi-05-e229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Villinger K, Wahl DR, Boeing H, Schupp HT, Renner B. The effectiveness of app-based mobile interventions on nutrition behaviours and nutrition-related health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2019 Oct;20(10):1465–1484. doi: 10.1111/obr.12903. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31353783 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Scarry A, Rice J, O'Connor EM, Tierney AC. Usage of mobile applications or mobile health technology to improve diet quality in adults. Nutrients. 2022 Jun 12;14(12):2437. doi: 10.3390/nu14122437. https://www.mdpi.com/resolver?pii=nu14122437 .nu14122437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Serrano-Ripoll MJ, Zamanillo-Campos R, Fiol-DeRoque MA, Castro A, Ricci-Cabello I. Impact of smartphone app-based psychological interventions for reducing depressive symptoms in people with depression: systematic literature review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 Jan 27;10(1):e29621. doi: 10.2196/29621. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/1/e29621/ v10i1e29621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Treadwell JR, Reston JT, Rouse B, Fontanarosa J, Patel N, Mull NK. Automated-Entry Patient-Generated Health Data for Chronic Conditions: The Evidence on Health Outcomes. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2021. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Triantafyllidis A, Kondylakis H, Votis K, Tzovaras D, Maglaveras N, Rahimi K. Features, outcomes, and challenges in mobile health interventions for patients living with chronic diseases: a review of systematic reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2019 Dec;132:103984. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.103984.S1386-5056(18)30725-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Holko M, Litwin TR, Munoz F, Theisz KI, Salgin L, Jenks NP, Holmes BW, Watson-McGee P, Winford E, Sharma Y. Wearable fitness tracker use in federally qualified health center patients: strategies to improve the health of all of us using digital health devices. NPJ Digit Med. 2022 Apr 25;5(1):53. doi: 10.1038/s41746-022-00593-x. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00593-x .10.1038/s41746-022-00593-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Krebs P, Duncan DT. Health app use among US mobile phone owners: a national survey. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Nov 04;3(4):e101. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.4924. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2015/4/e101/ v3i4e101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hogan TP, Etingen B, Lipschitz JM, Shimada SL, McMahon N, Bolivar D, Bixler FR, Irvin D, Wacks R, Cutrona S, Frisbee KL, Smith BM. Factors associated with self-reported use of web and mobile health apps among US military veterans: cross-sectional survey. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 Dec 30;10(12):e41767. doi: 10.2196/41767. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/12/e41767/ v10i12e41767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Reger GM, Harned M, Stevens ES, Porter S, Nguyen J, Norr AM. Mobile applications may be the future of veteran mental health support but do veterans know yet? A survey of app knowledge and use. Psychol Serv. 2022 Aug;19(3):480–487. doi: 10.1037/ser0000562.2021-50688-001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Lipschitz J, Miller CJ, Hogan TP, Burdick KE, Lippin-Foster R, Simon SR, Burgess J. Adoption of mobile apps for depression and anxiety: cross-sectional survey study on patient interest and barriers to engagement. JMIR Ment Health. 2019 Jan 25;6(1):e11334. doi: 10.2196/11334. https://mental.jmir.org/2019/1/e11334/ v6i1e11334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Erbes CR, Stinson R, Kuhn E, Polusny M, Urban J, Hoffman J, Ruzek JI, Stepnowsky C, Thorp SR. Access, utilization, and interest in mHealth applications among veterans receiving outpatient care for PTSD. Mil Med. 2014 Nov;179(11):1218–22. doi: 10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Yeager CM, Benight CC. If we build it, will they come? Issues of engagement with digital health interventions for trauma recovery. Mhealth. 2018;4:37. doi: 10.21037/mhealth.2018.08.04. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/30363749 .mh-04-2018.08.04 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Birnbaum F, Lewis D, Rosen RK, Ranney ML. Patient engagement and the design of digital health. Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Jun;22(6):754–6. doi: 10.1111/acem.12692. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/25997375 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Dearing JW, Cox JG. Diffusion Of innovations theory, principles, and practice. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018 Feb;37(2):183–190. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, Davis F. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003;27(3):425–78. doi: 10.2307/30036540. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989 Sep;13(3):319. doi: 10.2307/249008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, Aarons GA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Mandell DS. Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017 Apr;44(2):177–194. doi: 10.1007/s11414-015-9475-6. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26289563 .10.1007/s11414-015-9475-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, Griffey RT, Bunger AC, Glass JE, York JL. A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Med Care Res Rev. 2012 Apr;69(2):123–57. doi: 10.1177/1077558711430690. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22203646 .1077558711430690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Knapp AA, Carroll AJ, Mohanty N, Fu E, Powell BJ, Hamilton A, Burton ND, Coldren E, Hossain T, Limaye DP, Mendoza D, Sethi M, Padilla R, Price HE, Villamar JA, Jordan N, Langman CB, Smith JD. A stakeholder-driven method for selecting implementation strategies: a case example of pediatric hypertension clinical practice guideline implementation. Implement Sci Commun. 2022 Mar 07;3(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s43058-022-00276-4. https://implementationsciencecomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43058-022-00276-4 .10.1186/s43058-022-00276-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.van Rooijen M, Lenzen S, Dalemans R, Beurskens A, Moser A. Stakeholder engagement from problem analysis to implementation strategies for a patient-reported experience measure in disability care: A qualitative study on the process and experiences. Health Expect. 2021 Feb;24(1):53–65. doi: 10.1111/hex.13147. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/33125177 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, Kirchner JE. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015 Feb 12;10:21. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1. https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 .10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Etingen B, Amante DJ, Martinez RN, Smith BM, Shimada SL, Richardson L, Patterson A, Houston TK, Frisbee KL, Hogan TP. Supporting the implementation of connected care technologies in the veterans health administration: cross-sectional survey findings from the Veterans Engagement with Technology Collaborative (VET-C) cohort. J Particip Med. 2020 Sep 30;12(3):e21214. doi: 10.2196/21214. https://jopm.jmir.org/2020/3/e21214/ v12i3e21214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Martinez RN, Smith BM, Etingen B, Houston TK, Shimada SL, Amante DJ, Patterson A, Richardson LM, Vandenberg G, Cutrona SL, Quintiliani LM, Frisbee KL, Hogan TP. Health-related goal setting and achievement among veterans with high technology adoption. J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Nov;36(11):3337–3345. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06779-5. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/33963510 .10.1007/s11606-021-06779-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hogan TP, Etingen B, Lipschitz JM, Shimada SL, McMahon N, Bolivar D, Bixler FR, Irvin D, Wacks R, Cutrona S, Frisbee KL, Smith BM. Factors associated with self-reported use of web and mobile health apps among US military veterans: cross-sectional survey. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 Dec 30;10(12):e41767. doi: 10.2196/41767. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/12/e41767/ v10i12e41767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.36-item short form survey (SF-36) RAND Health Care. [2022-11-19]. https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/mos/36-item-short-form.html .
- 30.Cho AH, Arar NH, Edelman DE, Hartwell PH, Oddone EZ, Yancy WS. Do diabetic veterans use the Internet? Self-reported usage, skills, and interest in using My HealtheVet Web portal. Telemed J E Health. 2010 Jun;16(5):595–602. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Pope GC, Kautter J, Ellis RP, Ash AS, Ayanian JZ, Lezzoni LI, Ingber MJ, Levy JM, Robst J. Risk adjustment of Medicare capitation payments using the CMS-HCC model. Health Care Financ Rev. 2004;25(4):119–41. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/15493448 . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Morgan RO, Petersen LA, Hasche JC, Davila JA, Byrne MM, Osemene NI, Wei II, Johnson ML. VHA pharmacy use in veterans with Medicare drug coverage. Am J Manag Care. 2009 Mar 16;15(3):e1–8. https://www.ajmc.com/pubMed.php?pii=11078 .11078 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Yeatts JP, Sangvai D. HCC coding, risk adjustment, and physician income: what you need to know. Fam Pract Manag. 2016;23(5):24–7. https://www.aafp.org/link_out?pmid=27626116 .d12153 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Program guide 1200.21: VHA operations activities that may constitute research. Department of Veterans Affairs. [2025-07-23]. https://www.research.va.gov/resources/policies/ProgramGuide-1200-21-VHA-Operations-Activities.pdf .
- 35.Hogan TP, Etingen B, McMahon N, Bixler FR, Am L, Wacks RE, Shimada SL, Reilly ED, Frisbee KL, Smith BM. Understanding adoption and preliminary effectiveness of a mobile app for chronic pain management among US military veterans: pre-post mixed methods evaluation. JMIR Form Res. 2022 Jan 20;6(1):e33716. doi: 10.2196/33716. https://formative.jmir.org/2022/1/e33716/ v6i1e33716 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Saleem JJ, Read JM, Loehr BM, Frisbee KL, Wilck NR, Murphy JJ, Vetter BM, Herout J. Veterans' response to an automated text messaging protocol during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Aug 01;27(8):1300–1305. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa122. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32470974 .5848652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Cajita MI, Hodgson NA, Lam KW, Yoo S, Han H. Facilitators of and barriers to mHealth adoption in older adults with heart failure. Comput Inform Nurs. 2018 Aug;36(8):376–382. doi: 10.1097/CIN.0000000000000442. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/29742549 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Steeb T, Wessely A, Mastnik S, Brinker TJ, French LE, Niesert A, Berking C, Heppt MV. Patient attitudes and their awareness towards skin cancer-related apps: cross-sectional survey. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jul 02;7(7):e13844. doi: 10.2196/13844. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2019/7/e13844/ v7i7e13844 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kessel KA, Vogel MM, Kessel C, Bier H, Biedermann T, Friess H, Herschbach P, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Meyer B, Kiechle M, Keller U, Peschel C, Schmid RM, Combs SE. Mobile health in oncology: a patient survey about app-assisted cancer care. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Jun 14;5(6):e81. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.7689. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2017/6/e81/ v5i6e81 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Palacholla RS, Fischer N, Coleman A, Agboola S, Kirley K, Felsted J, Katz C, Lloyd S, Jethwani K. Provider- and patient-related barriers to and facilitators of digital health technology adoption for hypertension management: scoping review. JMIR Cardio. 2019 Mar 26;3(1):e11951. doi: 10.2196/11951. https://cardio.jmir.org/2019/1/e11951/ v3i1e11951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Borghouts J, Eikey E, Mark G, De Leon C, Schueller SM, Schneider M, Stadnick N, Zheng K, Mukamel D, Sorkin DH. Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 24;23(3):e24387. doi: 10.2196/24387. https://www.jmir.org/2021/3/e24387/ v23i3e24387 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Virtual health resource Ccnters. US Department of Veterans Affairs. [2023-12-14]. https://connectedcare.va.gov/virtual-health-resource-centers .
- 43.Yingling LR, Brooks AT, Wallen GR, Peters-Lawrence M, McClurkin M, Cooper-McCann R, Wiley KL, Mitchell V, Saygbe JN, Johnson TD, Curry RKE, Johnson AA, Graham AP, Graham LA, Powell-Wiley TM. Community engagement to optimize the use of web-based and wearable technology in a cardiovascular health and needs assessment study: a mixed methods approach. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Apr 25;4(2):e38. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.4489. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2016/2/e38/ v4i2e38 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Newton RL, Carter LA, Johnson W, Zhang D, Larrivee S, Kennedy BM, Harris M, Hsia DS. A church-based weight loss intervention in African American adults using text messages (LEAN study): cluster randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Aug 24;20(8):e256. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9816. https://www.jmir.org/2018/8/e256/ v20i8e256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Schueller SM, Neary M, O'Loughlin K, Adkins EC. Discovery of and interest in health apps among those with mental health needs: survey and focus group study. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jun 11;20(6):e10141. doi: 10.2196/10141. https://www.jmir.org/2018/6/e10141/ v20i6e10141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Veinot TC, Mitchell H, Ancker JS. Good intentions are not enough: how informatics interventions can worsen inequality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Aug 01;25(8):1080–1088. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy052. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/29788380 .4996916 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Yao R, Zhang W, Evans R, Cao G, Rui T, Shen L. Inequities in health care services saused by the adoption of digital health technologies: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Mar 21;24(3):e34144. doi: 10.2196/34144. https://www.jmir.org/2022/3/e34144/ v24i3e34144 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data used for this analysis are not permitted to leave the VHA firewall without a data use agreement. This limitation is consistent with other work based on VHA data. However, VHA data are made freely available to investigators behind the Department of Veterans Affairs’ firewall with appropriate documentation.