MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131568013 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-9-s1-a26

Smart-phone and medical app use amongst Irish medical students: a survey of use and attitudes

2015· article· en· W2131568013 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart phoneIrishPhoneMedicineMedical educationInternet privacySmartphone appFamily medicineEngineeringComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies in the UK and Canada reveal high smart-phone ownership rates with the majority of students viewing these devices as very useful with regards to their clinical education. Worryingly, low awareness basic privacy and security measures appears common amongst medical students. In Ireland, little is known regarding smart-phone app ownership and use. This study sampled Irish undergraduate medical students at a single site. A 31-item questionnaire was developed by the primary researcher following a preliminary literature review and subsequently underwent peer review. The questionnaire was distributed by means of a paper survey. Non-probability convenience sampling was conducted at educational sessions at a single site to students of all years of a medical undergraduate curriculum as per ethics approval. Collected data was analysed using SPSS Statistics 20. The internal consistency of the questionnaire as measured by Cronbach’s alpha was high (α=0.951). The survey response rate was 34.8% (317/909) with 80.8% (256/317) of respondents owning a smart-phone. A greater percentage of preclinical students, 83.4% (151/181) owned smart-phones as compared to older students, of which 77.3% owned such a device (105/29). More clinical students (78.1%) used medical apps as compared to preclinical students (57%). The two most popular brands were Apple and Samsung devices. Of those who owned a smart-phone, 65.6% (168/ 256) reported using medically-related apps. Students used apps predominately to aid their study. While 69.9% (179/256) of respondents trusted the information provided by the medical apps they used, only 42.2% (108/256) verified whether app content was correct. In relation to other learning methods, 38.3% (98/256) said they would prefer to use an app instead of a textbook, 23% (59/256) as compared to a lecture, although 50.8% (130/256) would prefer an app to other online information. High rates of smart-phone ownership and medical app use exist amongst Irish medical students. While the majority of students trust the apps they use, only 42% verified whether the content of the apps they used was correct. Students require greater guidance when using apps as part of their learning. Universities should educate students regarding such use and provide them with recommendations and guidelines of app use as approved by faculty following a peer review process.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.295 · 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