MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111673049 · doi:10.3390/life10120339

The Medium Is the Message: How Do Canadian University Students Want Digital Medication Information?

2020· article· en· W3111673049 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helen Monkman, André Kushniruk, Elizabeth M. Borycki, Debra Sheets, Jeff Barnett, Christian Nøhr

Bibliographic record

VenueLife · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentMedical prescriptionMedical educationDigital healthQualitative researchPsychologyInternet privacyComputer scienceMedicineHealth careNursingMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLifeSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207