MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216309534 · doi:10.2196/29687

Initial Feasibility of the “Families Moving Forward Connect” Mobile Health Intervention for Caregivers of Children With Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: Mixed Method Evaluation Within a Systematic User-Centered Design Approach

2021· article· en· W3216309534 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christie L. M. Petrenko, Carson Kautz‐Turnbull, Alicia Rose Roth, Jennifer Parr, Cristiano Tapparello, Utku Demir, Heather Carmichael Olson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Focus groupThematic analysismHealthAnalyticsMedicineMobile devicePsychologyMedical educationComputer sciencePsychological interventionNursingWorld Wide WebQualitative researchData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) are prevalent neurodevelopmental conditions. Significant barriers prevent family access to FASD-informed care. To improve accessibility, a scalable mobile health intervention for caregivers of children with FASD is under development. The app, called Families Moving Forward (FMF) Connect, is derived from the FMF Program, a parenting intervention tailored for FASD. FMF Connect has 5 components: Learning Modules, Family Forum, Library, Notebook, and Dashboard. OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the feasibility of FMF Connect intervention prototypes. This includes examining app usage data and evaluating user experience to guide further refinements. METHODS: Two rounds of beta-testing were conducted as part of a systematic approach to the development and evaluation of FMF Connect: (1) an iOS prototype was tested with 20 caregivers of children (aged 3-17 years) with FASD and 17 providers for the first round (April-May 2019) and (2) iOS and Android prototypes were tested with 25 caregivers and 1 provider for the second round (November-December 2019). After each 6-week trial, focus groups or individual interviews were completed. Usage analytics and thematic analysis were used to address feasibility objectives. RESULTS: Across beta-test trials, 84% (38/45) of caregivers and 94% (17/18) of providers installed the FMF Connect app. Technological issues were tracked in real time with updates to address problems and expand app functionalities. On use days, caregivers averaged 20 minutes using the app; most of the time was spent watching videos in Learning Modules. Caregiver engagement with the Learning Modules varied across 5 usage pattern tiers. Overall, 67% (30/45) of caregivers posted at least once in the Family Forum. Interviews were completed by 26 caregivers and 16 providers. App evaluations generally did not differ according to usage pattern tier or demographic characteristics. Globally, app users were very positive, with 2.5 times more positive- than negative-coded segments across participants. Positive evaluations emphasized the benefits of accessible information and practical utility of the app. Informational and video content were described as especially valuable to caregivers. A number of affective and social benefits of the app were identified, aligning well with the caregivers' stated motivators for app use. Negative evaluations of user experience generally emphasized technical and navigational aspects. Refinements were made on the basis of feedback during the first beta test, which were positively received during the second round. Participants offered many valuable recommendations for continuing app refinement, which is useful in improving user experience. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that the FMF Connect intervention is acceptable and feasible for caregivers raising children with FASD. They will guide subsequent app refinement before large-scale randomized testing. This study used a systematic, user-centered design approach for app development and evaluation. The approach used here may illustrate a model that can broadly inform the development of mobile health and digital parenting interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207