Determining the Capacity of Rural Communities for Remote Monitoring of Health Indicators and Physical Activity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to determine the community capacity for remote monitoring of health indicators and exercise for older adults with metabolic syndrome in a rural southwestern Ontario community. METHODS: Nine men and women, and 10 community leaders and healthcare professionals participated in one of three semi-structured focus groups at the Gateway Rural Health Research Institute in Seaforth, Ontario. In addition, an anonymous online forum was used to collect responses from community members, leaders, and health-care professionals who were unable to attend a focus group in person. A total of 62 online responses were provided to a series of six questions. Participants in both the focus groups and the online forum were asked questions about their desire to use remote monitoring technology to improve their health, what types and in what format they would use technology, and what they consider the costs and benefits of such technologies. In addition, they were provided with examples of current Smartphone applications, and online support websites aimed at self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP), blood glucose (BG), and exercise. Each focus group session was digitally recorded, and analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that participants had a keen interest in learning about nutrition and exercise to prevent the onset of type II diabetes. Participants noted that living in a rural community was a barrier to adopting healthy eating habits. With regards to technology, participants indicated that they might use Smartphone technology as a tool to help them make healthy eating choices and track their daily nutrient consumption. Participants were receptive to the idea of remote BP, BG, and exercise monitoring. However, concerns about technology included lack of time and knowledge, where and to whom their health information was being sent, and the monetary and social costs of such a program for individuals and the community. CONCLUSION: Overall, the idea of remote monitoring technology was well received among participants. However, the importance of the reported concerns and barriers cannot be undermined and should be taken into consideration when building a communities' capacity to take control over their health status. Thank you to CIHR for their generous funding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».