MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199945121 · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000005208

Perceptions of Mobile Health Technology in Elective Surgery

2021· article· en· W3199945121 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nikhil Panda, Robert D. Sinyard, Judy Margo, Natalie Henrich, Christy E. Cauley, Jukka‐Pekka Onnela, Alex B. Haynes, Mary Brindle

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthMedicineHealth careReimbursementQualitative researchNursingMedical recordData collectionNonprobability samplingMedical educationPsychological interventionSurgeryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To explore the surgeon-perceived added value of mobile health technologies (mHealth), and determine facilitators of and barriers to implementing mHealth. BACKGROUND: Despite the growing popularity of mHealth and evidence of meaningful use of patient-generated health data in surgery, implementation remains limited. METHODS: This was an exploratory qualitative study following the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. Purposive sampling was used to identify surgeons across the United States and Canada. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed development of a semistructured interview guide. Video-based interviews were conducted (September-November 2020) and interview transcripts were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty surgeons from 8 specialties and 6 North American regions were interviewed. Surgeons identified opportunities to integrate mHealth data pre- operatively (eg, expectation-setting, decision-making) and during recovery (eg, remote monitoring, earlier detection of adverse events) among higher risk patients. Perceived advantages of mHealth data compared with surgical and patient-reported outcomes included easier data collection, higher interpretability and objectivity of mHealth data, and the potential to develop more patientcentered and functional measures of health. Surgeons identified a variety of implementation facilitators and barriers around surgeon- and patient buy-in, integration with electronic medical records, regulatory/reimbursement concerns, and personnel responsible for mHealth data. Surgeons described similar considerations regarding perceptions of mHealth among patients, including the potential to address or worsen existing disparities in surgical care. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have the potential to inform the effective and equitable implementation of mHealth for the purposes of supporting patients and surgical care teams throughout the delivery of surgical care.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.312
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of SurgerySame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207