MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154933051 · doi:10.2196/25299

Conducting Internet-Based Visits for Onboarding Populations With Limited Digital Literacy to an mHealth Intervention: Development of a Patient-Centered Approach

2021· article· en· W3154933051 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rosa Hernandez-Ramos, Adrián Aguilera, Faviola Garcia, Jose Miramontes-Gomez, Laura Elizabeth Pathak, Caroline Figueroa, Courtney R. Lyles

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsOnboardingmHealthTelehealthTelemedicineMedicineThe InternetHealth careIntervention (counseling)PopulationHealth literacyMedical educationNursingPsychologyPsychological interventionComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has propelled patient-facing research to shift to digital and telehealth strategies. If these strategies are not adapted for minority patients of lower socioeconomic status, health inequality will further increase. Patient-centered models of care can successfully improve access and experience for minority patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to present the development process and preliminary acceptability of altering in-person onboarding procedures into internet-based, remote procedures for a mobile health (mHealth) intervention in a population with limited digital literacy. METHODS: We actively recruited safety-net patients (English- and Spanish-speaking adults with diabetes and depression who were receiving care at a public health care delivery system in San Francisco, United States) into a randomized controlled trial of text messaging support for physical activity. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we modified the in-person recruitment and onboarding procedures to internet-based, remote processes with human support. We conducted a preliminary evaluation of how the composition of the recruited cohort might have changed from the pre-COVID-19 period to the COVID-19 enrollment period. First, we analyzed the digital profiles of patients (n=32) who had participated in previous in-person onboarding sessions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Next, we documented all changes made to our onboarding processes to account for remote recruitment, especially those needed to support patients who were not very familiar with downloading apps onto their mobile phones on their own. Finally, we used the new study procedures to recruit patients (n=11) during the COVID-19 social distancing period. These patients were also asked about their experience enrolling into a fully digitized mHealth intervention. RESULTS: Recruitment across both pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods (N=43) demonstrated relatively high rates of smartphone ownership but lower self-reported digital literacy, with 32.6% (14/43) of all patients reporting they needed help with using their smartphone and installing apps. Significant changes were made to the onboarding procedures, including facilitating app download via Zoom video call and/or a standard phone call and implementing brief, one-on-one staff-patient interactions to provide technical assistance personalized to each patient's digital literacy skills. Comparing recruitment during pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods, the proportion of patients with digital literacy barriers reduced from 34.4% (11/32) in the pre-COVID-19 cohort to 27.3% (3/11) in the COVID-19 cohort. Differences in digital literacy scores between both cohorts were not significant (P=.49). CONCLUSIONS: Patients of lower socioeconomic status have high interest in using digital platforms to manage their health, but they may require additional upfront human support to gain access. One-on-one staff-patient partnerships allowed us to provide unique technical assistance personalized to each patient's digital literacy skills, with simple strategies to troubleshoot patient barriers upfront. These additional remote onboarding strategies can mitigate but not eliminate digital barriers for patients without extensive technology experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT0349025, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03490253.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations54
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207