The Medium Is the Message: How Do Canadian University Students Want Digital Medication Information?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: To facilitate optimal prescription medication benefits and safety, it is important that people are informed about their prescription medications. As we shift towards using the digital medium to communicate medication information, it is important to address the needs and preferences of different user groups so that they are more likely to read and use this information. In this study, we examined what digital medication information (DMI) format Canadian University students want and why. (2) Methods: This study was a qualitative investigation of young (aged 18–35) Canadian University students’ (N = 36) preferences and rationale supporting these preferences with respect to three potential formats for providing DMI: email, a mobile application (app), and online. Reported advantages and disadvantages of each of the three DMI formats were identified and categorized into unique themes. (3) Results: Findings from this study suggest that Canadian University Students most want to receive DMI by email, followed by a mobile app, and finally they were least receptive to online DMI. Participants provided diverse themes of reasons supporting their preferences. (4) Conclusions: Different user groups may have different needs with respect to receiving DMI. The themes from this study suggest that using a formative evaluation framework for assessing different DMI formats may be useful in future research. Email may be the best way to share DMI with younger, generally healthy, Canadian University students who are on few medications. Further research is required to explore whether other mediums for DMI are more appropriate for users with other characteristics (e.g., older and less educated) and contexts (e.g., polypharmacy and complex conditions). Given the flexibility of digital information, DMI could plausibly be provided in multiple formats and could allow users to choose the option they like best and would be most likely to use.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".