MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912224277 · doi:10.2196/11539

An Intervention to Promote Medication Understanding and Use Self-Efficacy: Design of Video Narratives for Aging Patients at Risk of Recurrent Stroke

2019· article· en· W2912224277 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth Education and Validation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMonash University
KeywordsNarrativeIntervention (counseling)Stroke (engine)Medication adherenceSelf-efficacyMedicinePsychologyGerontologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychotherapistPsychiatryInternal medicineArtEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The debilitating effects of recurrent stroke among aging patients have urged researchers to explore medication adherence among these patients. Video narratives built upon Health Belief Model (HBM) constructs have displayed potential impact on medication adherence, adding an advantage to patient education efforts. However, its effect on medication understanding and use self-efficacy have not been tested. OBJECTIVE: The researchers believed that culturally sensitive video narratives, which catered to a specific niche, would reveal a personalized impact on medication adherence. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and validate video narratives for this purpose. METHODS: This study adapted the Delphi method to develop a consensus on the video scripts' contents based on learning outcomes and HBM constructs. The panel of experts comprised 8 members representing professional stroke disease experts and experienced poststroke patients in Malaysia. The Delphi method involved 3 rounds of discussions. Once the consensus among members was achieved, the researchers drafted the initial scripts in English, which were then back translated to the Malay language. A total of 10 bilingual patients, within the study's inclusion criteria, screened the scripts for comprehension. Subsequently, a neurologist and poststroke patient narrated the scripts in both languages as they were filmed, to add to the realism of the narratives. Then, the video narratives underwent a few cycles of editing after some feedback on video engagement by the bilingual patients. Few statistical analyses were applied to confirm the validity and reliability of the video narratives. RESULTS: Initially, the researchers proposed 8 learning outcomes and 9 questions based on HBM constructs for the video scripts' content. However, following Delphi rounds 1 to 3, a few statements were omitted and rephrased. The Kendall coefficient of concordance, W, was about 0.7 (P<.001) for both learning outcomes and questions which indicated good agreement between members. Each statement's Cronbach alpha was above .8 with SD values within a range below 1.5 that confirmed satisfactory content and construct validity. Approximately 75% (6/8) of members agreed that all chosen statements were relevant and suitable for video script content development. Similarly, more than 80% (8/10) of patients scored video engagement above average, intraclass correlation coefficient was above 0.7, whereas its Kendall W was about 0.7 with significance (P<.001), which indicated average agreement that the video narratives perceived realism. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi method was proven to be helpful in conducting discussions systematically and providing precise content for the development of video narratives, whereas the Video Engagement Scale was an appropriate measurement of video realism and emotions, which the researchers believed could positively impact medication understanding and use self-efficacy among patients with stroke. A feasibility and acceptability study in an actual stroke care center is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000174280; https://www.anzctr.org.au /Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373554&isReview=true.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.309 · 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