MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4230101917 · doi:10.2196/preprints.22110

Evaluating Simplified Web Interfaces of Risk Models for Clinical Use: Pilot Survey Study (Preprint)

2020· preprint· en· W4230101917 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Beaubien, Colin Conrad, Janet Music, Sandra Toze

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityPreprintComputer scienceSociotechnical systemUnified theory of acceptance and use of technologyTest (biology)Web applicationUser interfaceTechnology acceptance modelWorld Wide WebKnowledge managementPsychologyHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND In this pilot study, we investigated sociotechnical factors that affect intention to use a simplified web model to support clinical decision making. OBJECTIVE We investigated factors that are known to affect technology adoption using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2) model. The goal was to pilot and test a tool to better support complex clinical assessments. METHODS Based on the results of a previously published work, we developed a web-based mobile user interface, WebModel, to allow users to work with regression equations and their predictions to evaluate the impact of various characteristics or treatments on key outcomes (eg, survival time) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The WebModel provides a way to combat information overload and more easily compare treatment options. It limits the number of web forms presented to a user to between 1 and 20, rather than the dozens of detailed calculations typically required. The WebModel uses responsive design and can be used on multiple devices. To test the WebModel, we designed a questionnaire to probe the efficacy of the WebModel and assess the usability and usefulness of the system. The study was live for one month, and participants had access to it over that time. The questionnaire was administered online, and data from 674 clinical users who had access to the WebModel were captured. SPSS and R were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS The regression model developed from UTAUT2 constructs was a fit. Specifically, five of the seven factors were significant positive coefficients in the regression: performance expectancy (β=.2730; t=7.994; P<.001), effort expectancy (β=.1473; t=3.870; P=.001), facilitating conditions (β=.1644; t=3.849; P<.001), hedonic motivation (β=.2321; t=3.991; P<.001), and habit (β=.2943; t=12.732). Social influence was not a significant factor, while price value had a significant negative influence on intention to use the WebModel. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate that multiple influences impact positive response to the system, many of which relate to the efficiency of the interface to provide clear information. Although we found that the price value was a negative factor, it is possible this was due to the removal of health workers from purchasing decisions. Given that this was a pilot test, and that the system was not used in a clinical setting, we could not examine factors related to actual workflow, patient safety, or social influence. This study shows that the concept of a simplified WebModel could be effective and efficient in reducing information overload in complex clinical decision making. We recommend further study to test this in a clinical setting and gather qualitative data from users regarding the value of the tool in practice.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.711
GPT teacher head0.635
Teacher spread0.076 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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