Adoption of Speech Recognition Technology in Community Healthcare Nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adoption of new health information technology is shown to be challenging. However, the degree to which new technology will be adopted can be predicted by measures of usefulness and ease of use. In this work these key determining factors are focused on for design of a wound documentation tool. In the context of wound care at home, consistent with evidence in the literature from similar settings, use of Speech Recognition Technology (SRT) for patient documentation has shown promise. To achieve a user-centred design, the results from a conducted ethnographic fieldwork are used to inform SRT features; furthermore, exploratory prototyping is used to collect feedback about the wound documentation tool from home care nurses. During this study, measures developed for healthcare applications of the Technology Acceptance Model will be used, to identify SRT features that improve usefulness (e.g. increased accuracy, saving time) or ease of use (e.g. lowering mental/physical effort, easy to remember tasks). The identified features will be used to create a low fidelity prototype that will be evaluated in future experiments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".