MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3108869681 · doi:10.2196/24157

Issues Associated With the Management and Governance of Sensor Data and Information to Assist Aging in Place: Focus Group Study With Health Care Professionals

2020· article· en· W3108869681 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Inga Hunter, Phoebe Elers, Caroline Lockhart, Hans W. Guesgen, Amardeep Singh, Dick Whiddett

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueTechnology Use by Older Adults
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFocus groupHealth careNursingAging in placeInformation governanceMedicineInformation systemGerontologyManagement information systemsBusinessMarketingPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Smart home and telemonitoring technologies have often been suggested to assist health care workers in supporting older people to age in place. However, there is limited research examining diverse information needs of different groups of health care workers and their access to appropriate information technologies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the issues associated with using technologies that connect older people to their health care providers to support aging in place and enhance older people's health and well-being. METHODS: Seven focus group discussions were conducted comprising 44 health care professionals who provided clinic-based or in-home services to community-dwelling older people. Participants were asked about their information needs and how technology could help them support older people to age in place. The recordings of the sessions were transcribed and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: The perspectives varied between the respondents who worked in primary care clinics and those who worked in community-based services. Three overarching themes were identified. The first theme was "access to technology and systems," which examined the different levels of technology in use and the problems that various groups of health care professionals had in accessing information about their patients. Primary care professionals had access to good internal information systems but they experienced poor integration with other health care providers. The community-based teams had poor access to technology. The second theme was "collecting and sharing of information," which focused on how technology might be used to provide them with more information about their patients. Primary care teams were interested in telemonitoring for specific clinical indicators but they wanted the information to be preprocessed. Community-based teams were more concerned about gaining information on the patients' social environment. The third theme was that all respondents identified similar "barriers to uptake": cost and funding issues, usability of systems by older people, and information security and privacy concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The participants perceived the potential benefits of technologies, but they were concerned that the information they received should be preprocessed and integrated with current information systems and tailored to the older people's unique and changing situations. Several management and governance issues were identified, which needed to be resolved to enable the widespread integration of these technologies into the health care system. The disconnected nature of the current information architecture means that there is no clear way for sensor data from telemonitoring and smart home devices to be integrated with other patient information. Furthermore, cost, privacy, security, and usability barriers also need to be resolved. This study highlights the importance and the complexity of management and governance of systems to collect and disseminate such information. Further research into the requirements of all stakeholder groups and how the information can be processed and disseminated is required.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,364
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,969

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,372
Écart entre enseignants0,338 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations21
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR mhealth and uhealthMême sujetTechnology Use by Older AdultsTravaux en français237 207