Crowdsourced Community Support Resources Among Patients Discharged From the Emergency Department During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Pilot Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic has placed strains on communities. During this public health crisis, health systems have created remote methods of monitoring symptom progression and delivering care virtually. Objective Using an SMS text message-based system, we sought to build and test a remote model to explore community needs, connect individuals to curated resources, and facilitate community health worker intervention when needed during the pandemic. The primary aims of this pilot study were to establish the feasibility (ie, engagement with the text line) and acceptability (ie, participant ratings of resources and service) of delivering automated well-being resources via smartphone technology. Methods Eligible patients (aged 18 years or older, having a cell phone with SMS text messaging capability, and recently visited the emergency department) were identified using the electronic health record. The patients were consented to enroll and begin receiving COVID-19–related information and links to community resources. We collected open-ended and close-ended resource and mood ratings. We calculated the frequencies and conducted a thematic review of the open-ended responses. Results In 7 weeks, 356 participants were enrolled; 13,917 messages were exchanged including 333 resource ratings (mean 4) and 673 well-being scores (mean 6.8). We received and coded 386 open-ended responses, most of which elaborated upon their self-reported mood score (29%). Overall, 77% (n=274) of our participants rated the platform as a service they would highly recommend to a family member or friend. Conclusions This approach is designed to broaden the reach of health systems, tailor to community needs in real time, and connect at-risk individuals with robust community health support.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".