MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4223500064 · doi:10.1101/2022.04.06.22273509

A Voice App Design for Heart Failure Self-Management: A Pilot Study

2022· preprint· en· W4223500064 on OpenAlexaff
Antonia Barbaric, Cosmin Munteanu, Heather J. Ross, Joseph A Cafazzo

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLikert scaleWorkloadDemographicsComputer sciencePsychologyScale (ratio)Applied psychologyMultimediaDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is a growing interest to investigate the feasibility of using voice user interfaces as a platform for digital therapeutics in chronic disease management. While mostly deployed as smartphone applications, some demographics struggle when using touch screens and often cannot complete tasks independently. This research aimed to evaluate how heart failure patients interacted with a voice app version of an already existing digital therapeutic, Medly , using a mixed-methods concurrent triangulation approach. The objective was to determine the acceptability and feasibility of the voice app by better understanding who this platform is be best suited for. Quantitative data included engagement levels and accuracy rates. Participants (n=20) used the voice app over a four week period and completed questionnaires and semi-structured interviews relating to acceptability, ease of use, and workload. The average engagement level was 73%, with a 14% decline between week one and four. The difference in engagement levels between the oldest and youngest demographic was the most significant, 84% and 43% respectively. The Medly voice app had an overall accuracy rate of 97.8% and was successful in sending data to the clinic. Users were accepting of the technology (ranking it in the 80 th percentile) and felt it did not require a lot of work (2.1 on a 7-point Likert scale). However, 13% of users were less inclined to use the voice app at the end of the study. The following themes and subthemes emerged: (1) feasibility of clinical integration: user adaptation to voice app’s conversational style, device unreliability, and (2) voice app acceptability: good device integration within household, users blamed themselves for voice app problems, and voice app missing desirable user features. The voice app proved to be most beneficial to those who: are older, have flexible schedules, are confident with using technology, and are experiencing other medical conditions.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→