Developing an interactive mobile phone self-report system for self-management of hypertension. Part 2: Content validity and usability

References

• Hackam DG, Khan NA, Hemmelgarn BR, Rabkin SW, Touyz RM, Cambell NRC, et al. The 2010 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part 2 – therapy. Can J Cardiol. 2010;26:249–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daskalopoulou SS, Khan NA, Quinn RR, Ruzicka M, McKay DW, Hackam DG, et al. The 2012 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: Blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk and therapy. Can J Cardiol. 2012;28:270–287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabate E (Ed). Adherence to long-term therapies: Evidence for action. Geneva, Switzerland; World Health Organization; 2003. http://www.who.int/chp/knowledge/publications/adherence_report/en/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Antikainen RL, Kastarinen MJ, Jousilahti P, Peltonen M, Laatikainen T, Beckett N, et al. Despite evidence-based guidelines, systolic blood pressure remains inadequately controlled in older hypertensive adults. J Hum Hypertens. 2010;24:439–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, Cifkova R, Fagard R, Germano G, et al. 2007 ESH–ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Blood Press. 2007;16:135–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall IJ, Wolfe CD, McKevitt C. Lay perspectives on hypertension and drug adherence: Systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ [e3953]. 2012; 344 [cited 2012 Jul 9]; Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e3953
   Google Scholar
• Moen J, Bohm A, Tillenius T, Antonov K, Nilsson LG, Ring L. “I don´t know how many of these medicines are necessary.” – A focus group study among elderly users of multiple medicines. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74:135–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishna S, Austin Boren S, Balas A. Healthcare via cell phones: A systematic review. Telemed e-Health. 2009;15: 231–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blake H. Innovation in practice: Mobile phone technology in patient care. Br J Community Nurs. 2008; 13:160–165.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Glynn LG, Murphy AW, Smith SM, Schroeder K, Fahey T. Self-monitoring and other non-pharmacological interventions to improve the management of hypertension in primary care: A systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2010; 60: e476–e488 [cited 29 Nov 2010]; Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991764/
   Google Scholar
• Donald PL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Kline Leidy N, Martin ML, Molsen E, et al. Content validity – establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient- reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 1 – Assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011;14:967–977.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donald PL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Kline Leidy N, Martin ML, Molsen E, et al. Content validity – establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient- reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 2 – Assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011;14:978–988.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims; 2009. [www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf.]
   Google Scholar
• Bengtsson U, Kasperowski D, Ring L, Kjellgren K. Developing an interactive mobile phone self-report system. Part 1: Patient and professional perspectives. Blood Press 2014; Early online.
   Google Scholar
• Kjellgren KI, Ahlner J, Dahlöf B, Gill H, Hedner T, Säljö R. Perceived symptoms amongst hypertensive patients in routine clinical practice – A population-based study. J Intern Med 1998;244:325–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midekke M, Lemmer B, Eckes L. Prevalence of hypertension-attributed symptoms in routine clinical practice: A general practitioners-based study. J Hum Hypertens. 2008;22: 252–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benson J, Britten N. What effects do patients feel from their antihypertensive tablets and how do they react to them?Qualitative analysis of interviews with patients. Fam Pract. 2006;23:80–87.
   Google Scholar
• Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin DE, Varni JW, Yeatts K, DeWalt, DA. Cognitive interviewing methodology in the development of a pediatric item bank: A patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) study. Health Qual Life Outcomes [doi:10.1186/1477-7525-7-3] 2009;7:3 [cited 23 Jan 2009]; Available from: http://www.hqlo.com/content/7/1/3.
   Google Scholar
• Yoon SS, Burt V, Louis T, Carrol MD. Hypertension among adults in the United States, 2009–2010. NCHS data brief 2012 (107). National Centre for Health Statistics. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db107.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Beatty PC , Willis GB. Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opin Q. 2007;71:287–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien E, Atkins N, Stergiou G, et al. European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010 for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices in adults. Blood Press Monit Feb. 2010;15:23–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays RD, Anderson RT, Revicki D. Assessing reliability and validity of measurement in clinical trials. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM, editors. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials. Methods and practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. p 169–182.
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki, Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects; 2008. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Conrad FG, Blair J. Sources of error in cognitive interviews. Public Opin Q. 2009;73:32–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watt T, Krogh Rasmussen Å, Groenvold M, Bue Bjorner J, Hope Watt S, Bonnema SJ, et al. Improving a newly developed patient-reported outcome for thyroid patients, using cognitive interviewing. Qual Life Res. 2008;17: 1009–1017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeMaio T, Rothgeb, J. Cognitive interviewing techniques: In the lab and in the field. In: Schwarz N, Sudman S, editors. Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Beatty P. Cognitive interviewing: The use of cognitive interviews to evaluate ePRO instruments. In: Byrom B, Tiplady B, editors. ePRO: Electronic solutions for patient-reported data. Farnham: Gower Publishing Limited and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company; 2010. p 23–49.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. National e-Health – The strategy for accessible and secure information in health and social care. Sweden: Edita; 2011. Available from: http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/19/52/46/10fe6449.pdf
   Google Scholar