MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941254743 · doi:10.2196/11634

Supporting the Process of Help-Seeking by Caregivers of Functionally Dependent Older Persons Through Electronic Health: Protocol for a Multicenter Co-Design

2019· article· en· W2941254743 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Karine Latulippe, Manon Guay, Sophie Éthier, Andrée Sévigny, Véronique Dubé, Véronique Provencher, Valérie Poulin, Anik Giguère, M. Tremblay, Maude Carignan, Dominique Giroux

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeQuebec Network for Research on AgingUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsProtocol (science)Process (computing)PsychologyMulticenter studyMedical educationNursingMedicineApplied psychologyGerontologyComputer scienceRandomized controlled trialAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is often only when the initial signs of exhaustion appear that caregivers first may engage in help-seeking behavior, but it is difficult for them to know which is the most appropriate formal service in their situation. Electronic health (eHealth) can support caregivers in keeping the older person they are caring for at home, but few eHealth tools designed for supporting the process of help-seeking by caregivers of functionally impaired older persons have been developed using a co-design approach. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to describe the protocol of a project that tries to assist caregivers to target their needs and those of the older person they support early in their help-seeking process, and guide them effectively to the formal service most appropriate for their situation. This project aims to answer the following questions: (1) What type of tool can better support caregivers to identify their needs and those of the older person they are caring for and then refer them to an appropriate formal service? and (2) What information should be found in such a tool? METHODS: This study presents a description of the process of an ongoing multicenter research project based on a co-design approach, which includes 3 phases (1) identification of caregivers' needs in terms of tools to support their help-seeking behavior, (2) development of a tool, and (3) evaluation of its usability. RESULTS: The project began in January 2016 with the ethics application for the 3 phases of the project. For phase 1, recruitment began in December 2016 and ended in September 2017. Phase 2 began in the spring of 2017 and ended in June 2018. All the co-design sessions have been completed. Phase 3 of the project will begin in September 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are some challenges associated with this type of methodology, the methodology still remains relevant, as it involves future users in the development of a tool, which increases the chances that the tool will meet the users' needs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/11634.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.413 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207