Determining the Capacity of Rural Communities for Remote Monitoring of Health Indicators and Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to determine the community capacity for remote monitoring of health indicators and exercise for older adults with metabolic syndrome in a rural southwestern Ontario community. METHODS: Nine men and women, and 10 community leaders and healthcare professionals participated in one of three semi-structured focus groups at the Gateway Rural Health Research Institute in Seaforth, Ontario. In addition, an anonymous online forum was used to collect responses from community members, leaders, and health-care professionals who were unable to attend a focus group in person. A total of 62 online responses were provided to a series of six questions. Participants in both the focus groups and the online forum were asked questions about their desire to use remote monitoring technology to improve their health, what types and in what format they would use technology, and what they consider the costs and benefits of such technologies. In addition, they were provided with examples of current Smartphone applications, and online support websites aimed at self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP), blood glucose (BG), and exercise. Each focus group session was digitally recorded, and analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that participants had a keen interest in learning about nutrition and exercise to prevent the onset of type II diabetes. Participants noted that living in a rural community was a barrier to adopting healthy eating habits. With regards to technology, participants indicated that they might use Smartphone technology as a tool to help them make healthy eating choices and track their daily nutrient consumption. Participants were receptive to the idea of remote BP, BG, and exercise monitoring. However, concerns about technology included lack of time and knowledge, where and to whom their health information was being sent, and the monetary and social costs of such a program for individuals and the community. CONCLUSION: Overall, the idea of remote monitoring technology was well received among participants. However, the importance of the reported concerns and barriers cannot be undermined and should be taken into consideration when building a communities' capacity to take control over their health status. Thank you to CIHR for their generous funding.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".