Lived Experiences and Technological Literacy of Heart Failure Patients and Clinicians at a Cardiac Care Centre in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Digital health could serve as a low-cost means of enabling better self-care in patients living with heart failure (HF) in resource-limited settings such as Uganda. However, digital health interventions previously deployed in such settings have been unsuccessful due to a lack of local patient and clinician engagement in the design process. Objective: To engage Ugandan HF patients and clinicians regarding their experiences with HF management and technology, so as to inform the future design of a digital health intervention for HF patients in Uganda. Methods: The study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods design. Data collection was completed at the Uganda Heart Institute in Kampala, Uganda. Data were ascertained through a patient survey and semi-structured interviews completed with HF patients, caregivers, physicians, and nurses. A conventional content analysis approach was used to qualitatively examine interview transcripts. Findings: Survey data were collected from 101 HF patients (62 female/39 male, aged 54.2 ± 17.5 years). Nearly half (48%) disagreed that they knew what to do in response to changes in their HF symptoms. Almost all patients (98%) had access to a mobile device. Many patients (63%) identified as comfortable in using mobile money - a local set of services that use Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD). Interviews were completed with 19 HF patients, three caregivers, seven physicians, and three nurses. Qualitative analysis revealed four clusters of themes: overdependence of patients on the clinic, inconvenience associated with attending the clinic, inconsistent patient self-care behaviours at home, and technological abilities that favoured USSD-based services. Conclusions: Ugandan HF patients possess unmet information needs that leave them ill-equipped to care for themselves. Future digital health interventions for this population should empower patients with HF-specific information and reassurance in their self-care abilities. Based on patient preferences, such systems should harness USSD technology with which most patients are already comfortable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".