Investigating Users' and Other Stakeholders' Needs in the Development of a Personalized Integrated Care Platform (PROCare4Life) for Older People with Dementia or Parkinson Disease: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dementias-including Alzheimer disease-and Parkinson disease profoundly impact the quality of life of older population members and their families. PROCare4Life (Personalized Integrated Care Promoting Quality of Life for Older Adults) is a European project that recognizes the benefit of technology-based integrated care models in improving the care coordination and the quality of life of these target groups. This project proposes an integrated, scalable, and interactive care platform targeting older people suffering from neurodegenerative diseases, their caregivers, and socio-health professionals. PROCare4Life adopts a user-centered design approach from the early stage and throughout platform development and implementation, during which the platform is designed and adapted to the needs and requirements of all the involved users. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the study protocol for investigating users' needs and requirements regarding the design of the proposed PROCare4Life platform. METHODS: A mixed qualitative and quantitative study design is utilized, including online surveys, interviews, and workshops. The study aimed to recruit approximately 200 participants, including patients diagnosed with dementia or Parkinson disease, caregivers, socio-health professionals, and other stakeholders, from five different European countries: Germany, Italy, Portugal, Romania, and Spain. RESULTS: The study took place between April and September 2020. Recruitment is now closed, and all the data have been collected and analyzed in order to be used in shaping the large-scale pilot phase of the PROCare4Life project. Results of the study are expected to be published in spring 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This paper charts the protocol for a user-centered design approach at the early stage of the PROCare4Life project in order to shape and influence an integrated health platform suitable for its intended target group and purpose. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/22463.
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 | 0.083 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
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".