Mutual-Aid Mobile App for Emergency Care: Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of patient care through the use of mobile devices is one of the hot topics in the health care field. In unwanted situations like an accident, ambulances and rescuers often require a certain amount of time to arrive at the scene. Providing immediate cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to patients might improve survival. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of an emergency and mutual-aid app model in Taiwan and to provide a reference for government policy. METHODS: A structured questionnaire was developed as a research tool. All questionnaires were designed according to the technology acceptance model, and a Likert scale was used to measure the degree of agreement or disagreement. Moreover, in-depth interviews were conducted with six experts from medical, legal, and mobile app departments. Each expert was interviewed once to discuss feasible countermeasures and suggestions. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 19; IBM Corp, Armonk, New York) was used to perform all statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics, independent sample t-tests, variance analysis, and Pearson correlation analysis. RESULTS: We conducted this study between October 20, 2017, and November 10, 2017, at the Taipei Medical University Hospital. Questionnaires were distributed to medical personnel, visiting guests, family members, and volunteers. A total of 113 valid questionnaires were finally obtained after the exclusion of incomplete questionnaires. Cronbach α values for self-efficacy (perceived ease of use), use attitude (perceived usefulness), and use willingness and frequency were above .85, meeting the criterion of greater than .70. We observed that the reliability of each subquestion was acceptable and the values for use attitude (perceive usefulness) and use willingness and frequency were more than .90. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the app model affect use willingness. However, perceived usefulness had an intermediary influence on use willingness. Experts in law, medical, and technology fields consider that an emergency and mutual-aid model can be implemented in Taiwan. Along with the development of an emergency and mutual-aid app model, we recommend an increase in the number of automated external defibrillators per region and promotion of correct knowledge about CPR in order to decrease morbidity and mortality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".