MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081033857 · doi:10.2196/resprot.4159

Mobile Phone and Tablet Apps to Support Young People’s Management of Their Physical Long-Term Conditions: A Systematic Review Protocol

2015· review· en· W2081033857 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rabiya Majeed‐Ariss, Andrew Hall, J. E. R. McDonagh, Veronica Swallow

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet privacyMobile phoneContext (archaeology)Protocol (science)mHealthPhoneHealth careMobile appsQuality of life (healthcare)MultimediaComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide WebNursingAlternative medicinePsychological interventionTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of long-term or chronic conditions that limit activity and reduce quality of life in young people aged 10-24 years is rising. This group has distinct health care needs and requires tailored support strategies to facilitate increasing personal responsibility for the management of their condition wherever possible, as they mature. Mobile phone and tablet mobile technologies featuring software program apps are already well used by young people for social networking or gaming. They have also been utilized in health care to support personal condition management, using condition-specific and patient-tailored software. Such apps have much potential, and there is an emerging body of literature on their use in a health context making this review timely. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to develop a systematic review protocol focused on identifying and assessing the effectiveness of mobile phone and tablet apps that support young people's management of their chronic conditions. METHODS: The search strategy will include a combination of standardized indexed search terms and free-text terms related to the key concepts of young people; long-term conditions and mobile technology. Peer-reviewed journal articles published from 2003 that meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be identified through searching the generated hits from 5 bibliographical databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts to determine which articles focus on testing interventions identified as a mobile phone or tablet apps, and that have been designed and delivered to support the management of long-term conditions in young people aged 10-24 years. Data extraction and quality assessment tools will be used to facilitate consistent analysis and synthesis. It is anticipated that several studies will meet the selection criteria but that these are likely to be heterogeneous in terms of study design, reported outcomes, follow-up times, participants' age, and health condition. Sub-group analyses will be undertaken and where possible meta-analyses will take place. RESULTS: This review will synthesize available knowledge surrounding tablet and mobile phone apps that support management of long term physical health conditions in young people. The findings will be synthesized to determine which elements of the technologies were most effective for this population. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review aims to synthesize existing literature in order to generate findings that will facilitate the development of an app intervention. The review will form the first phase of development and evaluation of a complex intervention as recommended by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council. The knowledge gained from the review will be verified in subsequent phases, which will include primary qualitative work with health professionals and young people with long term conditions as research participants. Young people living with long-term conditions will be involved as co-researchers and consumer advisors in all subsequent phases to develop and evaluate an app to support the management of long-term physical health conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews: CRD42014015418; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014015418#.VRqCpTpnL8E (Archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/6XREcWqQY).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.107
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1070.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.014
Bibliometrics0.0200.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.334
GPT teacher head0.666
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207