Implementation and User Evaluation of an eHealth Technology Platform Supporting Patients With Cardiovascular Disease in Managing Their Health After a Cardiac Event: Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: eHealth technology can help patients with cardiovascular disease adopt and maintain a healthy lifestyle by supporting self-management and offering guidance, coaching, and tailored information. However, to support patients over time, eHealth needs to blend in with their needs, treatment, and daily lives. Just as needs can differ between patients, needs can change within patients over time. To better adapt technology features to patients' needs, it is necessary to account for these changes in needs and contexts of use. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and monitor patients' needs for support from a web-based health management platform and how these needs change over time. It aimed to answer the following research questions: "How do novice and more advanced users experience an online health management platform?" "What user expectations support or hinder the adoption of an online health management platform, from a user perspective?" and "How does actual usage relate to user experiences and adoption?" METHODS: A mixed methods design was adopted. The first method involved 2 rounds of usability testing, followed by interviews, with 10 patients at 0 months (round 1) and 12 patients at 6 months (round 2). In the second method, log data were collected to describe the actual platform use. RESULTS: After starting cardiac rehabilitation, the platform was used frequently. The patients mentioned that they need to have an incentive, set goals, self-monitor their health data, and feel empowered by the platform. However, soon after the rehabilitation program stopped, use of the platform declined or patients even quit because of the lack of continued tailored or personalized advice. The reward system motivated them to log data, but most participants indicated that being healthy should be the main focus, not receiving gifts. A web-based platform is flexible, accessible, and does not have any obligations; however, it should be implemented as an addition to regular care. CONCLUSIONS: Although use of the platform declined in the longer term, patients quitting the technology did not directly indicate that the technology was not functioning well or that patients no longer focused on achieving their values. The key to success should not be user adherence to a platform but adherence to healthy lifestyle habits. Therefore, the implementation of eHealth should include the transition to a stage where patients might no longer need support from a technology platform to be independently and sustainably adherent to their healthy lifestyle habits. This emphasizes the importance of conducting multi-iterative evaluations to continuously monitor whether and how patients' needs and contexts of use change over time. Future research should focus on how this transition can be identified and monitored and how these insights can inform the design and implementation of the technology.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,027 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».