Gender Differences in Satisfaction With a Text Messaging Program (Text4Hope) and Anticipated Receptivity to Technology-Based Health Support During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Survey Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In March 2020, Text4Hope-a community health service-was provided to Alberta residents. This free service aims to promote psychological resilience and alleviate pandemic-associated stress, anxiety, and depression symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the feedback, satisfaction, experience, and perceptions of Text4Hope subscribers and to examine any differences based on gender after subscribers received 6 weeks of daily supportive text messages. Additionally, this study examined subscribers' anticipated receptivity to technology-based medical services that could be offered during major crises, emergencies, or pandemics. METHODS: Individuals self-subscribed to Text4Hope to receive daily supportive text messages for 3 months. Subscribers were invited to complete a web-based survey at 6 weeks postintervention to provide service satisfaction-related information. Overall satisfaction was assessed on a scale of 0-10, and satisfaction scores were analyzed using a related-measures t test. Likert scale satisfaction responses were used to assess various aspects of the Text4Hope program. Gender differences were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square analyses. RESULTS: A total of 2032 subscribers completed the baseline and 6-week surveys; 1788 (88%) were female, 219 (10.8%) were male, and 25 (1.2%) were other gender. The mean age of study participants was 44.58 years (SD 13.45 years). The mean overall satisfaction score was 8.55 (SD 1.78), suggesting high overall satisfaction with Text4Hope. The ANOVA analysis, which was conducted using the Welch test (n=1716), demonstrated that females had significantly higher mean satisfaction scores than males (8.65 vs 8.11, respectively; mean difference=0.546; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.91; P<.001) and nonsignificantly lower satisfaction scores than other gender respondents (mean difference=-0.938; 95% CI -0.37 to 2.25; P=.15). More than 70% of subscribers agreed that Text4Hope helped them cope with stress (1334/1731, 77.1%) and anxiety (1309/1728, 75.8%), feel connected to a support system (1400/1729, 81%), manage COVID-19-related issues (1279/1728, 74%), and improve mental well-being (1308/1731, 75.6%). Similarly, subscribers agreed that messages were positive, affirmative, and succinct. Messages were always or often read by 97.9% (1681/1716) of respondents, and more than 20% (401/1716, 23.4%) always or often returned to messages. The majority of subscribers (1471/1666, 88.3%) read the messages and either reflected upon them or took a positive action. Subscribers welcomed almost all technology-based services as part of their health care during crisis or emergency situations. Text4Hope was perceived to be effective by many female subscribers, who reported higher satisfaction and improved coping after receiving text messages for 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents affirmed the high quality of the text messages with their positive feedback. Technology-based services can provide remotely accessible and population-level interventions that align with the recommended physical distancing practices for pandemics. Text4Hope subscriber feedback revealed high satisfaction and acceptance at 6 weeks postintervention. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/19292.
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 | 0,003 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».