MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970962488 · doi:10.2196/12639

Analysis of the Implementation, User Perspectives, and Feedback From a Mobile Health Intervention for Individuals Living With Hypertension (DREAM-GLOBAL): Mixed Methods Study

2019· article· en· W2970962488 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jordan Barsky, Rebekah Hunter, Colin McAllister, Karen Yeates, Norm R.C. Campbell, Peter P. Liu, Nancy Perkins, Diane Hua‐Stewart, Marion Maar, Sheldon W. Tobe

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of CalgaryQueen's UniversityHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthFocus groupMedicineQualitative propertyPsychological interventionBlood pressureHealth careMobile phoneeHealthCommunity healthQualitative researchNursingComputer sciencePublic healthBusinessTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: DREAM-GLOBAL (Diagnosing hypertension-Engaging Action and Management in Getting Lower Blood Pressure in Indigenous and low- and middle-income countries) studied a SMS text messaging-based system for blood pressure measurement and hypertension management in Canadian Aboriginal and Tanzanian communities. The use of SMS text messages is an emerging point of interest in global health care initiatives because of their scalability, customizability, transferability, and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to assess the effect on the difference in blood pressure reduction of active hypertension management messages or passive health behavior messages. The system was designed to be implemented in remote areas with wireless availability. This study described the implementation and evaluation of technical components, including quantitative data from the transmission of blood pressure measurements and qualitative data collected on the operational aspects of the system from participants, health care providers, and community leadership. METHODS: The study was implemented in six remote Indigenous Canadian and two rural Tanzanian communities. Blood pressure readings were taken by a community health worker and transmitted to a mobile phone via Bluetooth, then by wireless to a programmed central server. From the server, the readings were sent to the participant's own phone as well. Participants also received biweekly tailored SMS text messages on their phones. Quantitative data on blood pressure reading transmissions were collected from the study central server. Qualitative data were collected by surveys, focus groups, and key informant interviews of participants, health care providers, and health leadership. RESULTS: In Canada, between February 2014 and February 2017, 2818 blood pressure readings from 243 patients were transmitted to the central server. In Tanzania, between October 2014 and August 2015, 1165 readings from 130 patients were transmitted to the central server. The use of Bluetooth technology enabled the secure, reliable transmission of information from participants to their health care provider. The timing and frequency were satisfactory to 137 of 187 (73.2%) of participants, supporting the process of sending weekly messages twice on Mondays and Thursdays at 11 am. A total of 97.0% (164/169) of the participants surveyed said they would recommend participation in the DREAM-GLOBAL program to a friend or relative with hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: In remote communities, the DREAM-GLOBAL study helped local health care providers deliver a blood pressure management program that enabled patients and community workers to feel connected. The technical components of the study were implemented as planned, and patients felt supported in their management through the SMS text messaging and mobile health program. Technological issues were solved with troubleshooting. Overall, the technical aspects of this research program enhanced clinical care and study evaluation and were well received by participants, health care workers, and community leadership. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02111226; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02111226.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.449 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207