Exploring the Person-Centeredness of an Innovative E-Supportive System Aimed at Person-Centered Care
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated in a multiphase development project, the Care Expert is a prototype of a novel e-supportive system aiming to mediate person-centered care in the context of outpatient oncology. At this early stage of development, the current study was conducted aiming at exploring the person-centeredness concept underlying the Care Expert version 1.0 and its usability for patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy for breast cancer. Within a user-centered design, we followed a mixed-methods approach entailing subjective assessment and diagnostic evaluation of the prototype. Four women undergoing outpatient chemotherapy participated in individual sessions and rated highly the system's usability. Their accounts led to identifying three supportive functions: continuous communication, reinforcement of self-driven agency, and cooperative agency with a sense of being looked after. We discuss the results in relation to theoretical fields that might guide further the development of the supportive system and usability recommendations. Care Expert has the potential to mediate person-centered care in outpatient oncology. Nevertheless, additional cycles of iterative development with the software team and of participatory design focusing on oncology nurses' perspectives are required before departing to the feasibility phase in intervention research.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it