Co-designing a digital companion with people living with Parkinson's to support self-care in a personalized way: The eCARE-PD Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
eHealth technologies play a role in the development of integrated care models for people living with Parkinson disease by improving communication with their health care teams and support self-care practices in a personalized way. This article presents a co-design approach to designing an eHealth technology, the eCARE-PD platform, that addresses the needs and expectations of people living with Parkinson disease, generates tailored care tips, and recommends actions for managing care priorities at home. We use a co-design approach involving four main iterative phases: (1) preparation, (2) mapping, (3) testing and using, and (4) co-producing solutions and requirements. This approach uses several methods to engage people directly to design this technology. The study allowed us to identify design principles to be integrated in the development of the eCARE-PD platform. These principles incorporate the expectations of future users, which were expressed during the iterative phases of the co-design process: (a) six key design features based on users' needs and expectations, (b) six main issues users raised during a test at home and key features for improving the design of the eCARE-PD platform, and (c) collective solutions to design an interactive, meaningful, tailored, empathic, and socially acceptable technology. The results of the successive phases of the co-design process allow us to underline the progressive constitution of a technology defined over successive iterations as a digital companion supporting the self-care process at home and having the capacity to generate tailored digital health communication.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".