MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986829474 · doi:10.2196/15320

Characteristics Associated With Facebook Use and Interest in Digital Disease Support Among Older Adults With Atrial Fibrillation: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Baseline Data From the Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Elements in Atrial Fibrillation (SAGE-AF) Cohort

2019· article· en· W2986829474 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Molly E. Waring, Mellanie True Hills, Darleen Lessard, Jane S. Saczynski, Brooke A Libby, Marta Holovatska, Alok Kapoor, Catarina I. Kiefe, David D. McManus

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cardio · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationMedicineOdds ratioLogistic regressionInternal medicineStroke (engine)Cross-sectional studyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Online support groups for atrial fibrillation (AF) and apps to detect and manage AF exist, but the scientific literature does not describe which patients are interested in digital disease support. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe characteristics associated with Facebook use and interest in digital disease support among older patients with AF who used the internet. METHODS: We used baseline data from the Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Elements in Atrial Fibrillation (SAGE-AF), a prospective cohort of older adults (≥65 years) with AF at high stroke risk. Participants self-reported demographics, clinical characteristics, and Facebook and technology use. Online patients (internet use in the past 4 weeks) were asked whether they would be interested in participating in an online support AF community. Mobile users (owns smartphone and/or tablet) were asked about interest in communicating with their health care team about their AF-related health using a secure app. Logistic regression models identified crude and multivariable predictors of Facebook use and interest in digital disease support. RESULTS: Online patients (N=816) were aged 74.2 (SD 6.6) years, 47.8% (390/816) were female, and 91.1% (743/816) were non-Hispanic white. Roughly half (52.5%; 428/816) used Facebook. Facebook use was more common among women (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.21, 95% CI 1.66-2.95) and patients with mild to severe depressive symptoms (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.08-2.10) and less common among patients aged ≥85 years (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15-0.48). Forty percent (40.4%; 330/816) reported interest in an online AF patient community. Interest in an online AF patient community was more common among online patients with some college/trade school or Bachelors/graduate school (aOR 1.70, 95% CI 1.10-2.61 and aOR 1.82, 95% CI 1.13-2.92, respectively), obesity (aOR 1.65, 95% CI 1.08-2.52), online health information seeking at most weekly or multiple times per week (aOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.32-2.56 and aOR 2.78, 95% CI 1.86-4.16, respectively), and daily Facebook use (aOR 1.76, 95% CI 1.26-2.46). Among mobile users, 51.8% (324/626) reported interest in communicating with their health care team via a mobile app. Interest in app-mediated communication was less likely among women (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.68) and more common among online patients who had completed trade school/some college versus high school/General Educational Development (aOR 1.95, 95% CI 1.17-3.22), sought online health information at most weekly or multiple times per week (aOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.27-2.74 and aOR 2.24, 95% CI 1.39-3.62, respectively), and had health-related apps (aOR 3.92, 95% CI 2.62-5.86). CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults with AF who use the internet, technology use and demographics are associated with interest in digital disease support. Clinics and health care providers may wish to encourage patients to join an existing online support community for AF and explore opportunities for app-mediated patient-provider communication.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CardioSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207