MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995538709 · doi:10.2196/15758

Development and Local Contextualization of Mobile Health Messages for Enhancing Disease Management Among Community-Dwelling Stroke Patients in Rural China: Multimethod Study

2019· article· en· W2995538709 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Enying Gong, Wanbing Gu, Erdan Luo, Liwei Tan, Julian Donovan, Cheng Sun, Ying Yang, Long-kai Zang, Peng Bao, Lijing L. Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsMobile phonemHealthInterviewMedicineIntervention (counseling)Stroke (engine)Short Message ServiceNursingMedical emergencyPsychological interventionComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rural China has experienced an increasing health burden because of stroke. Stroke patients in rural communities have relatively poor awareness of and adherence to evidence-based secondary prevention and self-management of stroke. Mobile technology represents an innovative way to influence patient behaviors and improve their self-management. OBJECTIVE: This study is part of the System-Integrated Technology-Enabled Model of Care (the SINEMA trial) to improve the health of stroke patients in resource-poor settings in China. This study aimed to develop and pilot-test a mobile phone message-based package, as a component of the SINEMA intervention. METHODS: The SINEMA trial was conducted in Nanhe County, Hebei Province, China. A total of 4 villages were selected for pretrial contextual research and pilot study. The 5 stages for developing the mobile phone messages were as follows: (1) conducting literature review on existing message banks and analyzing the characteristics of these banks; (2) interviewing stroke patients and caregivers to identify their needs; (3) drafting message contents and designing dispatching algorithms for a 3-month pilot testing; (4) collecting feedback from pilot participants through questionnaire survey and in-depth interviews on facilitators and barriers related to their acceptance and understanding of messages; and (5) finalizing the message-based intervention based on participants' feedback for the SINEMA trial. RESULTS: On the basis of 5 existing message banks screened out of 120 papers and patients' needs identified from 32 in-depth interviews among stroke patients and caregivers, we developed a message bank containing 224 messages for a pilot study among 54 community-dwelling stroke patients from 4 villages. Of 54 participants, 51 (response rate: 94.4%) completed the feedback survey after receiving daily messages for 3 months. Participants' mean age was 68 years (SD 9.2), and about half had never been to school. We observed a higher proportion of participants who were in favor of voice messages (23/42, 54%) than text messages (14/40, 35%). Among participants who received voice messages (n=43) and text messages (n=40), 41 and 30, respectively, self-reported a full or partial understanding of the contents, and 39 (39/43, 91%) and 32 (32/40, 80%), respectively, rated the messages as helpful. Analyses of the 32 interviews further revealed that voice messages containing simple and single-theme content, in plain language, with a repeated structure, a slow playback speed, and recorded in local dialect, were preferred by rural stroke patients. In addition, the dispatching algorithm and tools may also influence the acceptance of message-based interventions. CONCLUSIONS: By applying multiple methodologies and conducting a pilot study, we designed and fine-tuned a voice message-based intervention package for promoting secondary prevention among community-dwelling stroke patients in rural China. Design of the content and dispatching algorithm should engage both experts and end users and adequately consider the needs and preferences of recipients.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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