The Virtual Inclusive Digital Health Intervention Design to Promote Health Equity (iDesign) Framework for Atrial Fibrillation: Co-design and Development Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Smartphone ownership and mobile app use are steadily increasing in individuals of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds living in the United States. Growing adoption of technology creates a perfect opportunity for digital health interventions to increase access to health care. To successfully implement digital health interventions and engage users, intervention development should be guided by user input, which is best achieved by the process of co-design. Digital health interventions co-designed with the active engagement of users have the potential to increase the uptake of guideline recommendations, which can reduce morbidity and mortality and advance health equity. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to co-design a digital health intervention for patients with atrial fibrillation, the most common cardiac arrhythmia, with patient, caregiver, and clinician feedback and to describe our approach to human-centered design for building digital health interventions. METHODS: We conducted virtual meetings with patients with atrial fibrillation (n=8), their caregivers, and clinicians (n=8). We used the following 7 steps in our co-design process: step 1, a virtual meeting focused on defining challenges and empathizing with problems that are faced in daily life by individuals with atrial fibrillation and clinicians; step 2, a virtual meeting focused on ideation and brainstorming the top challenges identified during the first meeting; step 3, individualized onboarding of patients with an existing minimally viable version of the atrial fibrillation app; step 4, virtual prototyping of the top 3 ideas generated during ideation; step 5, further ranking by the study investigators and engineers of the ideas that were generated during ideation but were not chosen as top-3 solutions to be prototyped in step 4; step 6, ongoing engineering work to incorporate top-priority features in the app; and step 7, obtaining further feedback from patients and testing the atrial fibrillation digital health intervention in a pilot clinical study. RESULTS: The top challenges identified by patients and caregivers included addressing risk factor modification, medication adherence, and guidance during atrial fibrillation episodes. Challenges identified by clinicians were complementary and included patient education, addressing modifiable atrial fibrillation risk factors, and remote atrial fibrillation episode management. Patients brainstormed more than 30 ideas to address the top challenges, and the clinicians generated more than 20 ideas. Ranking of the ideas informed several novel or modified features aligned with the Theory of Health Behavior Change, features that were geared toward risk factor modification; patient education; rhythm, symptom, and trigger correlation for remote atrial fibrillation management; and social support. CONCLUSIONS: We co-designed an atrial fibrillation digital health intervention in partnership with patients, caregivers, and clinicians by virtually engaging in collaborative creation through the design process. We summarize our experience and describe a flexible approach to human-centered design for digital health intervention development that can guide innovative clinical investigators.
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 | 0,007 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,017 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».