Technology Readiness Level and Self-Reported Health in Recipients of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Approximately 200,000 implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are implanted annually worldwide, with around 20% of recipients experiencing significant psychological distress. Despite this, there are no ICD guidelines addressing mental health as part of rehabilitation programs, which primarily focus on educating patients about their condition and prognosis. There is a need to include elements such as emotional distress, social interactions, and the future use of technologies like apps and virtual communication in ICD rehabilitation, without increasing the burden on health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to demonstrate how data from the Readiness for Health Technology Index (READHY), combined with sociodemographic characteristics and exploratory interviews, can be used to construct profiles of recipients of an ICD, describing their ability to manage their condition, their need for support, and their digital health literacy. This aims to enhance health care professionals' understanding of different patient archetypes, serving as guidance in delivering personalized services tailored to the needs, resources, and capabilities of individual recipients of ICDs. METHODS: Overall, 79 recipients of an ICD participated in a survey assessing technology readiness using the READHY. The survey also collected sociodemographic data such as age, sex, and educational level. Self-reported health was measured using a Likert scale. Cluster analysis categorized participants into profiles based on their READHY scores. Correlations between READHY scores and self-reported health were examined. In addition, qualitative interviews with representatives from different readiness profiles provided deeper insights. RESULTS: Four technology readiness profiles were found: (1) profile 1 (low digital health literacy, insufficient on 5 dimensions), (2) profile 2 (sufficient on all dimensions), (3) profile 3 (consistently sufficient readiness on all dimensions), and (4) profile 4 (insufficient readiness on 9 dimensions). Participants in profile 4, characterized by the lowest readiness levels, were significantly younger (P=.03) and had lower self-reported health (P<.001) than those in profile 3. A correlation analysis revealed that higher READHY scores were associated with better self-reported health across all dimensions. Qualitative interviews highlighted differences in self-management approaches and the experience of support between profiles, emphasizing the essential role of social support toward the rehabilitation journeys of recipients of an ICD. Two patient vignettes were created based on the characteristics from the highest and lowest profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Using the READHY instrument to create patient profiles demonstrates how it can be used to make health care professionals aware of specific needs within the group of recipients of an ICD.
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 | 0,001 | 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».