MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979186959 · doi:10.2196/15236

An mHealth App Designed for Fertility Patients: From Conception to Pilot Testing

2019· article· en· W2979186959 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Phyllis Zelkowitz, Skye A. Miner, Siobhan Bernadette Laura O’Connell, Stéphanie Robins

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthFertility clinicInfertilityPsychosocialPsychological interventionFertilityMedical educationMedicineReproductive healthHealth careReadabilityPsychologyInternet privacyFamily medicineNursingComputer sciencePregnancyPopulationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Infertility is a distressing chronic condition affecting one in six couples; many of them seek to achieve a pregnancy via assisted reproductive technologies. Online resources for information and support are a mainstay of the self-help strategies of fertility patients. Patients seek explanations online about their diagnoses and treatment options, and hope to connect with others who have lived through a diagnosis of infertility. However, medical information found online is often inaccurate or hard to understand. Importantly, online forums that might provide social support are seldom monitored, allowing for the dissemination of potentially misleading information. In this study we describe the development of an mHealth app, Infotility, designed to provide evidence-based reproductive health information and a monitored message board to provide social support to users. Objective The objective was to describe the steps involved in the production of an mHealth app created specifically for fertility patients. Methods Our team followed guidelines established for the development of complex health interventions. To evaluate the existing online information sources, we assessed web-based information on infertility using standardized tools for readability, suitability and quality. To determine our stakeholders’ perspectives on what content to include in the app, a needs assessment survey was conducted in a sample of 289 male and 370 female fertility patients and 127 health care providers at clinics in Montreal and Toronto. A comprehensive review of the literature on the medical and psychosocial aspects of infertility was undertaken; summaries were then reviewed for accuracy and pertinence by patients, clinicians, researchers and professionals in the field of fertility. A technology partner was hired to create a user-friendly mobile app that contained the informational summaries, with separate portals for men and women, leading to content specifically curated for the user’s interests. There was also a closed discussion platform, “Connect”, monitored by 18 previous or current fertility patients. Peer monitors underwent one-on-one training and received an instructional manual created to assist with responding to forum messages from participants. Between November 2018 and April 2019, the app was pilot tested in a sample of 72 male and 187 female fertility patients to assess feasibility of recruitment, acceptability, and user satisfaction. Results Initial results show that men and women appreciated Infotility. The most popular sections included information on modifiable lifestyle risks (eg, diet, exercise, environment), and medical and psychosocial information. Men preferentially visited pages about lifestyle factors whereas the most common pages visited by women related to medical information. Importantly, the “Connect” social network logged 39 open forum conversations with 258 total posts, as well as 14 private messages. Both men and women lurked and posted on the board; women posted more often than men. Conclusions The design of a mobile health app for fertility patients should consider user experience and design along with the quality and accessibility of information. A fertility mHealth app should provide access to monitored social support through the interface and consider how to effectively tailor information to men and women.

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)0.000
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 score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207