End user and implementer experiences of mHealth technologies for noncommunicable chronic disease management in young adults: a qualitative systematic review protocol
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
Review objective: The objective of this review is to systematically identify, review and synthesize relevant qualitative research on end user and implementer experiences of mobile health (mHealth) technologies developed for noncommunicable chronic disease management in young adults. “End users” are defined as young people aged 15–24 years, and “implementers” are defined as health service providers, clinicians, policy makers and administrators. The two key questions we wish to systematically explore from identified relevant qualitative studies or studies with qualitative components are: What are users’ (end user and implementer) experiences with mHealth technologies to support health interventions for the management of chronic noncommunicable conditions, including persistent musculoskeletal pain? What factors do users (end user and implementer) perceive or experience as facilitators or barriers to the uptake and/or implementation of mHealth technologies for young people with chronic noncommunicable conditions, including persistent musculoskeletal pain?
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 | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it