MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206162132 · doi:10.2196/34166

Multimedia Knowledge Translation Tools for Parents About Childhood Heart Failure: Environmental Scan

2022· article· en· W4206162132 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Chentel Cunningham, Hyelin Sung, James Benoit, Jennifer Conway, Shannon D. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChildren's Hospital FoundationStollery Children’s Hospital FoundationWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsUploadKnowledge translationKey (lock)The InternetWorld Wide WebInclusion (mineral)Computer sciencePsychologyMedical educationMedicineKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Childhood heart failure is a factor in many hospital admissions each year. It can impose a steep learning curve for parents who need to learn the key information to care for their child at home. In this study, we conducted an environmental scan to identify and assess web-based knowledge translation tools about childhood heart failure for parent audiences developed within North America. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to inventory tools publicly available to parents about childhood heart failure from popular web-based venues, assess how each tool communicates health information, and explore how they were developed. METHODS: Our search strategy included two commonly used multimedia-based platforms: two app stores (Google Play and Apple App Store) and one search engine (Advanced Google Search). Common search terms were used, and results were uploaded to Microsoft Excel for screening between 2 reviewers. The inclusion criteria for the tools were as follows: content focused on educating parents about their child's heart failure, developed in the English language, and originating within Canada and the United States. A total of 2 reviewers screened the app store and internet search results for relevant tools. Each tool was assessed using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM), a validated tool that objectively assesses the suitability of how health information is communicated to a particular audience. Key informants who were involved in tool development were identified and invited for a qualitative interview using a semistructured format to provide data about the development process. Key themes were identified in the semistructured interview process. RESULTS: Frequencies and SAM percent ratings of eligible tools were reported. No apps exist for parents relating to pediatric heart failure. Overall, 17 relevant internet tools were identified, and their suitability was assessed for the parent audience. Most tools scored well in layout and type, but they scored lower in readability and graphics. Qualitative interviews with key informants revealed three key themes: timely and introductory knowledge, credible and trustworthy knowledge, and challenges and evolution in knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first environmental scan looking for parent tools relating to childhood heart failure in Canada and the United States. Findings from this study reveal that there are no apps on this topic and there is a small number of tools for parents on the internet (n=17). Using the SAM, no tools scored in the superior range, and further work in knowledge translation strategies needs to be done in this area to improve more effective education to parents and caregivers who have a child with heart failure. These findings will inform the development of a new resource on children's heart failure that targets parents and caregiver audiences.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score1.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.334 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207