Development of a novel mobile application, HBB Prompt, with human factors and user-centred design for Helping Babies Breathe skills retention in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) is a life-saving program that has helped reduce neonatal morbidity and mortality, but knowledge and skills retention after training remains a significant challenge for sustainability of impact. User-centred design (UCD) can be used to develop solutions to target knowledge and skills maintenance. METHODS: We applied a process of UCD beginning with understanding the facilitators of, and barriers to, learning and retaining HBB knowledge and skills. HBB Master Trainers and frontline HBB providers participated in a series of focus group discussions (FGDs) to uncover the processes of skills acquisition and maintenance to develop a mobile application called "HBB Prompt". Themes derived from each FGD were identified and implications for development of the HBB Prompt app were explored, including feasibility of incorporating strategies into the format of an app. Data analysis took place after each iteration in Phase 1 to incorporate feedback and improve subsequent versions of HBB Prompt. RESULTS: Six HBB trainers and seven frontline HBB providers participated in a series of FGDs in Phase 1 of this study. Common themes included lack of motivation to practise, improving confidence in ventilation skills, ability to achieve the Golden Minute, fear of forgetting knowledge or skills, importance of feedback, and peer-to-peer learning. Themes identified that were not feasible to address pertained to health system challenges. Feedback about HBB Prompt was generally positive. Based on initial and iterative feedback, HBB Prompt was created with four primary functions: Training Mode, Simulation Mode, Quizzes, and Dashboard/Scoreboard. CONCLUSIONS: Developing HBB Prompt with UCD to help improve knowledge and skills retention was feasible and revealed key concepts, including drivers for successes and challenges faced for learning and maintaining HBB skills. HBB Prompt will be piloted in Phase 2 of this study, where knowledge and skills retention after HBB training will be compared between an intervention group with HBB Prompt and a control group without the app. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03577054). Retrospectively registered July 5, 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03577054 .
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".