MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005419901 · doi:10.2196/17219

A Mobile Health App for the Collection of Functional Outcomes After Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3005419901 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Li Li, Jia Huang, Jingsong Wu, Cai Jiang, Shanjia Chen, Guanli Xie, Jinxin Ren, Chetwyn C. H. Chan, Alex Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsTelehealthMedicineRandomized controlled trialRehabilitationPhysical therapymHealthTelemedicineVideoconferencingTelerehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)Telephone interviewHealth careNursingPsychological interventionMultimediaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Monitoring the functional status of poststroke patients after they transition home is significant for rehabilitation. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies may provide an opportunity to reach and follow patients post discharge. However, the feasibility and validity of functional assessments administered by mHealth technologies are unknown. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, validity, and reliability of functional assessments administered through the videoconference function of a mobile phone–based app compared with administration through the telephone function in poststroke patients after rehabilitation hospitalization. Methods A randomized controlled trial was conducted in a rehabilitation hospital in Southeast China. Participants were randomly assigned to either a videoconference follow-up (n=60) or a telephone follow-up (n=60) group. We measured the functional status of participants in each group at 2-week and 3-month follow-up periods. Half the participants in each group were followed by face-to-face home visit assessments as the gold standard. Validity was assessed by comparing any score differences between videoconference follow-up and home visit assessments, as well as telephone follow-up and home visit assessments. Reliability was assessed by computing agreements between videoconference follow-up and home visit assessments, as well as telephone follow-up and home visit assessments. Feasibility was evaluated by the levels of completion, satisfaction, comfort, and confidence in the 2 groups. Results Scores obtained from the videoconference follow-up were similar to those of the home visit assessment. However, most scores collected from telephone administration were higher than those of the home visit assessment. The agreement between videoconference follow-up and home visit assessments was higher than that between telephone follow-up and home visit assessments at all follow-up periods. In the telephone follow-up group, completion rates were 95% and 82% at 2-week and 3-month follow-up points, respectively. In the videoconference follow-up group, completion rates were 95% and 80% at 2-week and 3-month follow-up points, respectively. There were no differences in the completion rates between the 2 groups at all follow-up periods (X21=1.6, P=.21 for 2-week follow-up; X21=1.9, P=.17 for 3-month follow-up). Patients in the videoconference follow-up group perceived higher confidence than those in the telephone follow-up group at both 2-week and 3-month follow-up periods (X23=6.7, P=.04 for 2-week follow-up; X23=8.0, P=.04 for 3-month follow-up). The videoconference follow-up group demonstrated higher satisfaction than the telephone follow-up group at 3-month follow-up (X23=13.9; P=.03). Conclusions The videoconference follow-up assessment of functional status demonstrates higher validity and reliability, as well as higher confidence and satisfaction perceived by patients, than the telephone assessment. The videoconference assessment provides an efficient means of assessing functional outcomes of patients after hospital discharge. This method provides a novel solution for clinical trials requiring longitudinal assessments. Trial Registration chictr.org.cn: ChiCTR1900027626; http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=44831&htm=4.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207