Developing an Online Resource to Support Parents’ Search for Apps in The First Year of Parenthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parents’ mobile application (app) use is on the rise due to the affordability of smartphones and the convenience of accessing parenting support 24 hours a day. While apps can assist in parenting, it is hard for parents to find good quality apps that meet their expectations. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to co-create a parenting app directory to supports parents' search for apps in the first year of parenthood and co-design a user interface to feature the directory. Methods: Spinuzzi's (2005) stages of the participatory design methodology guided this study and the project was divided into three phases. Phase one, parenting app review, was conducted to gain insight into the available apps for parents. Phase 2, focus group discussions with 18 first-time Canadian parents (15 mothers, 3 fathers) allowed researchers to understand parents' needs and preferences. Phase three, design sessions were conducted with three parents (two fathers and one mother) to learn about parents' preferred design elements. Results: In phase one, app review, 4,300 apps were identified on the initial search, of which only 16 (0.4%) apps met the quality criteria reflecting the extent of the problem parents face in finding quality parenting apps. The quality apps were further reviewed by parents in phase two, focus group discussions, to finalize the selection of apps and resulted in the co-development of the partnering app directory. The focus group discussions also explored parents’ needs and preferences and the inductive thematic analysis resulted in four themes. Phase three, design sessions, led to the co-creation of a user interface to feature the app directory. Conclusion: Despite the availability of evidence-based apps, parents continue to report difficulties in finding desired quality apps. The app directory is one of the solutions that establishes easy access to quality parenting apps. Initiatives should be taken within the healthcare system to equip front-line nurses and other healthcare professionals with adequate knowledge and training to support contemporary parents’ needs via digital means.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".