Undergraduate Psychology Students’ Perceptions About the Use of ICT for Health Purposes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Information and communication technologies (ICT) have great potential for health care. In this study we explore undergraduate psychology students’ perceptions about different specific uses of ICT for health (i.e. online interventions, health information websites, telehealth and online social networks). A total of 113 students answered an online survey designed to gather their perceptions about the use of these four types of interventions for health purposes. Results: Results showed that online interventions and telehealth were assessed as the best ways of using ICT for health, while the worst way was using social networks for health. The most frequently mentioned advantages were related to the fact that ICT can help with access to information and/or treatments, and that they are comfortable. The most frequently mentioned disadvantages were related to the quality of the information (for social networks and health information websites) and the fact that they were considered impersonal (for telehealth and online interventions). Conclusions: Students were not very enthusiastic about the use of ICT for health. Education is needed to change these perceptions and increase the likelihood that they will incorporate ICT in their future practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".