MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093554349 · doi:10.1016/j.imu.2020.100460

Review of patients’ perspectives of m-health adoption factors in the developing world. Development of a proposed conceptual framework

2020· article· en· W3093554349 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformatics in Medicine Unlocked · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersFogarty International CenterNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsScopusInclusion (mineral)Developing countryGrey literatureAbstractionConceptual frameworkMedicineMEDLINEKnowledge managementPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceSociologySocial scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient perceptions and experiences of mobile health (m-health) systems have been recognised as an important element to consider in the adoption of m-health based technologies. Though much research supports this, published studies that identify m-health use by patients appear to highlight these issues in an indirect rather than a holistic manner. Consequently, there is no encompassing framework that serves as a guide for effective implementation and maximum adoption of m-health from the perspective of patients in the developing world. This review identifies patient adoption issues specifically and uses these to develop a framework of patient adoption issues for m-health in the developing world. A structured literature search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus. For PubMed, a consolidated search string combined ‘MeSH’ terms and ‘All Fields’ terms for selected keywords. For Scopus, an equally consolidated search string was used. The searches were restricted to articles in English during the period January 1, 2000 to 31 December2019 and relevant to the developing world. Duplicate articles were removed. Titles and abstracts were screened by all authors for inclusion, and those studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected for full-text review. Review and data abstraction was performed by two authors. Fifty-four (54) articles reported factors that impact patient adoption. Initial review and data abstraction identified 22 categories that promote or impede m-health adoption by patients in the developing world. Continued iterative review reduced these to 7 primary categories, with 20 subcategories, which were used to design the proposed framework. The review showed: great inconsistency in the approach and tools used in published studies; multiple factors impact patient adoption of m-health in the developing world; the specific factors vary from setting to setting and by recency of findings. Successful adoption of m-health by patients in the developing world critically depends on addressing the factors identified in the proposed framework and assessing them prior to the implementation of m-health initiatives in any specific setting. The proposed framework will serve to increase the consistency of patient adoption studies and provide the foundation for greater success of future m-health implementations for patients in the developing world.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.327 · 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