MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3116229324 · doi:10.2196/23155

Willingness to Adopt mHealth Among Chinese Parents During the COVID-19 Outbreak: Cross-sectional Questionnaire Study

2020· article· en· W3116229324 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siyu Yang, Yijing Chen, Leshan Zhou, Yuting Huang, Jiahui Dai

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthCross-sectional studyOutbreakLogistic regressionHealth careMedicineFamily medicineComputer-assisted web interviewingPsychologyNursingPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Parental involvement in mobile health (mHealth) to consult with medical professionals appears to be prevalent in China with the rapid development of the internet. More parents with busy jobs have chosen to use mHealth. During the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak, mHealth can assist with health promotion, directions for medication use, and disease diagnosis via online chat and video consultation without contacting others. To our knowledge, no studies have been performed to explore the role of mHealth in parents’ attitudes toward child health care at home during the COVID-19 outbreak. Objective This study aims to identify the associated factors of willingness to adopt mHealth among Chinese parents during the COVID-19 outbreak and to explore the correlation between the frequency of adopting mHealth and parents’ attitudes toward child health care at home. Methods Chinese parents were asked to complete an online survey from January 25 to February 15, 2020. The questionnaire comprised of two parts with a total of 16 items, including parents’ demographic variables and attitudes toward child health care at home. By multivariate logistic regression, we explored factors associated with parents’ willingness to adopt mHealth during the COVID-19 outbreak. Pearson chi-square tests were used to reveal the correlation between the frequency of adopting mHealth and parents’ attitudes toward child health care at home. Results A total of 254 parents enrolled, and 202 (79.5%) parents were willing to adopt mHealth during the COVID-19 outbreak. Parents’ age (26-35 years: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 8.114, 95% CI 1.471-44.764), parents’ interest in the COVID-19 pandemic (moderate: AOR 8.753, 95% CI 2.009-38.127; high: AOR 22.194, 95% CI 5.509-89.411), the source that recommended mHealth (medical health providers: AOR 4.257, 95% CI 1.439-12.596), the presence of chronic disease in their children (yes: AOR 20.844, 95% CI 4.600-94.443), parents’ duration of daily internet use (4-6 hours: AOR 6.487, 95% CI 1.870-22.495; >6 hours: AOR 8.766, 95% CI 1.883-40.804), and adoption of mHealth before the COVID-19 outbreak (yes: AOR 3.413, 95% CI 1.234-9.444) were significantly correlated with the parents’ willingness to adopt mHealth during the COVID-19 outbreak. The frequency of mHealth use among parents was correlated with their behaviors in regard to handwashing (χ26=18.967, P=.004), mask wearing (χ26=45.364, P<.001), frequency of leaving the home (χ26=16.767, P=.01), room disinfection and ventilation (χ26=19.515, P=.003), temperature checking (χ26=17.47, P=.007), and mental health care of children (χ26=63.810, P<.001) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions We found various objective factors that were associated with parents’ willingness to adopt mHealth during the COVID-19 outbreak. Overall, parents’ willingness to adopt mHealth was high. The frequency of mHealth use among parents was correlated with their attitudes toward child health care at home. The option of mHealth to patients at home during the COVID-19 outbreak would be beneficial for education and improvement in self-management of child health care at home.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→