Multimedia Knowledge Translation Tools for Parents About Childhood Heart Failure: Environmental Scan (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. CLINICALTRIAL
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 | 0.011 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".