Mobile Apps Aimed at Preventing and Handling Unintentional Injuries in Children Aged <7 Years: Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Despite various global health crises, the prevention and handling of unintentional childhood injuries remains an important public health objective. Although several systematic reviews have examined the effectiveness of different child injury prevention measures, these reviews did not address the evaluation of mobile communication intervention tools. Whether and how mobile apps were evaluated provides information on the extent to which communication theories, models, and evidence-based knowledge were considered. Previous studies have shown that the effectiveness of mobile apps increases when theories and evidence are considered during their development. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to identify research on mobile apps dealing with the prevention and handling of unintentional injuries in children and examine the theoretical and methodological approaches thereof. In addition, this review analyzed the different needs of various target groups of the mobile apps described in the articles. METHODS: In total, 8 electronic databases, ranging from interdisciplinary to medical and technical as well as social sciences databases, were searched for original research articles or brief reports in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings. Moreover, this review encompassed a systematic scan of articles published in the BMJ journal Injury Prevention. These steps were followed by a snowball search based on the literature references in the articles identified through the initial screening. The articles had to be written in English or German, published between 2008 and 2021, and evaluate mobile apps dealing with the prevention and handling of unintentional child injuries. The identified 5 studies were analyzed by 5 independent researchers using an inductive approach. Furthermore, the quality of the studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: A total of 5 articles were included and assessed with regard to overall quality of theoretical and methodological foundations, assessed variables, the focal app's architecture, and the needs of the study participants. The overall study quality was moderate, although part of this classification was due to a lack of details reported in the studies. Each study examined 1 mobile app aimed at parents and other caregivers. Each study assessed at least 1 usability- or user experience-related variable, whereas the needs of the included study participants were detailed in only 20% (1/5) of the cases. However, none of the studies referred to theories such as the Technology Acceptance Model during the development of the apps. CONCLUSIONS: The future development and evaluation of apps dealing with the prevention and handling of child injuries should combine insights into existing models on user experience and usability with established theories on mobile information behavior. This theory-based approach will increase the validity of such evaluation studies.
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 | 0,006 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 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 ».