Recommendations for Developing Support Tools With People Suffering From Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Co-Design and Pilot Testing of a Mobile Health Prototype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gaps exist between developers, commissioners, and end users in terms of the perceived desirability of different features and functionalities of mobile apps. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to co-design a prototype mobile app for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We present lessons learned and recommendations from working on a large project with various stakeholders to develop a mobile app for patients with COPD. METHODS: We adopted a user-centered, participatory approach to app development. Following a series of focus groups and interviews to capture requirements, we developed a prototype app designed to enable daily symptom recording (experience sampling). The prototype was tested in a usability study applying the think aloud protocol with people with COPD. It was then released via the Android app store, and experience sampling data and event data were captured to gather further usability data. RESULTS: A total of 5 people with COPD participated in the pilot study. Identified themes include familiarity with technology, appropriate levels for feeding back information, and usability issues such as manual dexterity. Moreover, 37 participants used the app over a 4-month period (median age 47 years). The symptoms most correlated to perceived well-being were tiredness (r=0.61; P<.001) and breathlessness (r=0.59; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Design implications for COPD apps include the need for clearly labeled features (rather than relying on colors or symbols that require experience using smartphones), providing weather information, and using the same terminology as health care professionals (rather than simply lay terms). Target users, researchers, and developers should be involved at every stage of app development, using an iterative approach to build a prototype app, which should then be tested in controlled settings as well as in the wild (ie, when deployed and used in real-world settings) over longer periods.
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 | 0.028 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".