Patient Engagement in the Design of a Mobile Health App That Supports Enhanced Recovery Protocols for Cardiac Surgery: Development Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of their perspectives, end users (eg, patients, caregivers) are not typically engaged by academic researchers in the development of mobile health (mHealth) apps for perioperative cardiac surgery settings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe a process for and the impact of patient engagement in the development of an mHealth app that supports patient and caregiver involvement with enhanced recovery protocols during the perioperative period of cardiac surgery. METHODS: Engagement occurred at the level of consultation and took the form of an advisory panel. Patients who underwent cardiac surgery (2017-2018) at St. Boniface Hospital (Winnipeg, Manitoba) and their caregivers were approached for participation. A qualitative exploration determined the impact of patient engagement on the development (ie, design and content) of the mHealth app. This included a description of (1) the key messages generated by the advisory panel, (2) how key messages were incorporated into the development of the mHealth app, and (3) feedback from the developers of the mHealth app about the key messages generated by the advisory panel. RESULTS: The advisory panel (N=10) generated 23 key messages to guide the development of the mHealth app. Key design-specific messages (n=7) centered around access, tracking, synchronization, and reminders. Key content-specific messages (n=16) centered around medical terms, professional roles, cardiac surgery procedures and recovery, educational videos, travel, nutrition, medications, resources, and physical activity. This information was directly incorporated into the design of the mHealth app as long as it was supported by the existing functionalities of the underlying platform. For example, the platform did not support the scheduling of reminders by users, identifying drug interactions, or synchronizing with other devices. The developers of the mHealth app noted that key messages resulted in the integration of a vast range and volume of information and resources instead of ones primarily focused on surgical information, content geared toward expectations management, and an expanded focus to include caregivers and other family members, so that these stakeholders may be directly included in the provision of information, allowing them to be better informed, prepare along with the patient, and be involved in recovery planning. CONCLUSIONS: Patient engagement may facilitate the development of a detail-oriented and patient-centered mHealth app whose design and content are driven by the lived experiences of end users.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".