Using Health Concept Surveying to Elicit Usable Evidence: Case Studies of a Novel Evaluation Methodology (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Developers, designers, and researchers use rapid prototyping methods to project the adoption and acceptability of their health intervention technology (HIT) before the technology becomes mature enough to be deployed. Although these methods are useful for gathering feedback that advances the development of HITs, they rarely provide usable evidence that can contribute to our broader understanding of HITs. OBJECTIVE In this research, we aim to develop and demonstrate a variation of vignette testing that supports developers and designers in evaluating early-stage HIT designs while generating usable evidence for the broader research community. METHODS We proposed a method called health concept surveying for untangling the causal relationships that people develop around conceptual HITs. In health concept surveying, investigators gather reactions to design concepts through a scenario-based survey instrument. As the investigator manipulates characteristics related to their HIT, the survey instrument also measures proximal cognitive factors according to a health behavior change model to project how HIT design decisions may affect the adoption and acceptability of an HIT. Responses to the survey instrument were analyzed using path analysis to untangle the causal effects of these factors on the outcome variables. RESULTS We demonstrated health concept surveying in 3 case studies of sensor-based health-screening apps. Our first study (N=54) showed that a wait time incentive could influence more people to go see a dermatologist after a positive test for skin cancer. Our second study (N=54), evaluating a similar application design, showed that although visual explanations of algorithmic decisions could increase participant trust in negative test results, the trust would not have been enough to affect people’s decision-making. Our third study (N=263) showed that people might prioritize test specificity or sensitivity depending on the nature of the medical condition. CONCLUSIONS Beyond the findings from our 3 case studies, our research uses the framing of the Health Belief Model to elicit and understand the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect the adoption and acceptability of an HIT without having to build a working prototype. We have made our survey instrument publicly available so that others can leverage it for their own investigations.
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 | 0.227 | 0.274 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".