Web-Based Patient Recommender Systems for Preventive Care: Protocol for Empirical Research Propositions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Preventive care helps patients identify and address medical issues early when they are easy to treat. The internet offers vast information about preventive measures, but the sheer volume of data can be overwhelming for individuals to process. To help individuals navigate this information, recommender systems filter and recommend relevant information to specific users. Despite their popularity in other fields, such as e-commerce, recommender systems have yet to be extensively studied as tools to support the implementation of prevention strategies in health care. This underexplored area presents an opportunity for recommender systems to serve as a complementary tool for medical professionals to enhance patient-centered decision-making and for patients to access health information. Thus, these systems can potentially improve the delivery of preventive care. OBJECTIVE: This study proposes practical, evidence-based propositions. It aims to identify the key factors influencing patients' use of recommender systems and outlines a study design, methods for creating a survey, and techniques for conducting an analysis. METHODS: This study proposes a 6-stage approach to examine user perceptions of the factors that may influence the use of recommender systems for preventive care. First, we formulate 6 research propositions that can be developed later into hypotheses for empirical testing. Second, we will create a survey instrument by collecting items from extant literature and then verify their relevance using expert analysis. This stage will continue with content and face validity testing to ensure the robustness of the selected items. Using Qualtrics (Qualtrics), the survey can be customized and prepared for deployment on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Third, we will obtain institutional review board approval because this is a human subject study. In the fourth stage, we propose using the survey to collect data from approximately 600 participants on Amazon Mechanical Turk and then using R to analyze the research model. This platform will serve as a recruitment tool and the method of obtaining informed consent. In our fifth stage, we will perform principal component analysis, Harman Single Factor test, exploratory factor analysis, and correlational analysis; examine the reliability and convergent validity of individual items; test if multicollinearity exists; and complete a confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: Data collection and analysis will begin after institutional review board approval is obtained. CONCLUSIONS: In pursuit of better health outcomes, low costs, and improved patient and provider experiences, the integration of recommender systems with health care services can extend the reach and scale of preventive care. Examining recommender systems for preventive care can be vital in achieving the quadruple aims by advancing the steps toward precision medicine and applying best practices. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/43316.
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 | 0,008 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 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 ».