MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758643686 · doi:10.2196/iproc.8676

Assessing Feasibility and Acceptability of mHealth among Underserved HIV+ Cocaine Users and Their Healthcare Providers

2017· article· en· W2758643686 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shan-Estelle Brown, Archana Krishnan, Yerina S. Ranjit, Ruthanne Marcus, Frederick L. Altice

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthPsychological interventionHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)AddictionMedicineHealth careDrugMedication adherenceTransmission (telecommunications)Family medicinePsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: HIV-infected individuals with comorbidities like drug addiction have difficulty staying in medical care and adhering to antiretroviral medication which, if taken regularly, results in viral suppression and greatly reduces risk of transmission to others. Since cocaine is not amenable to pharmacological interventions, there is an urgent need for behavioral interventions. Innovative and cost-effective strategies to improve medication adherence and optimize HIV treatment outcomes may be provided by mHealth. Very little, however, is known about the acceptability and feasibility of mHealth among HIV-infected drug users. Objective: To assess feasibility, acceptability, and barriers and facilitators of implementing an mHealth intervention among HIV-infected cocaine users. Methods: Focus groups were conducted with 5 groups (N=20) of HIV-infected individuals who self-reported cocaine use in the past 30 days, and 3 groups (N=8) of HIV and substance use providers. Participants were recruited from clinical and community venues including HIV and drug treatment clinics, a mobile medical unit, and support groups. We asked about: previous experience with smartphones and computers; barriers and facilitators of mobile technology for health purposes; attitudes toward receiving different types of feedback about adherence behaviors. Data was analyzed using content analysis to identify salient themes from responses, facilitated by the qualitative data analysis software NVivo. Results: Results highlighted the pattern and preference of cell phone/mobile device usage among HIV-infected cocaine users. Usage reasons included staying connected with their social network, receiving text reminders for appointments, information seeking, scheduling and recreational use. Text reminders were preferred over phone calls due to reasons of privacy, accessibility and economizing “minutes”. Patient privacy and confidence in the electronic medical system, however, were important themes among patients. Although cell phones were considered useful, some patients reported very limited computer use because of distrusting technology and worries that their medical information, particularly their HIV status, could be hacked through the phone. From providers’ perspectives, the personal interaction with patients, including via cell phones, was important to them and was often hampered by interruptions in patients’ phone use (number changes, disconnections, running out of pre-paid minutes). Communication via text message or phone calls would be most appropriate for professionals directly in charge and in continuous contact with patients, such as social workers and case managers, as opposed to physicians. Conclusions: Participants’ beliefs and suggestions were helpful in informing the design of a subsequent mHealth pilot randomized control trial. We incorporated findings in the following ways: (1) personalized feedback from a clinician along with automated reminders and feedback; (2) an extra layer of security was added on the smartphone app; and (3) facilitated mobility and convenience by providing backpacks for all devices, considering HIV-infected participants’ concerns about their transient and unstable living conditions. Understanding potential users’ and stakeholders’ perspectives is an important step in developing effective mHealth strategies to help people manage their health behaviors.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207