MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4234530153 · doi:10.2196/preprints.29755

Multiparameter Continuous Physiological Monitoring Technologies in Neonates Among Health Care Providers and Caregivers at a Private Tertiary Hospital in Nairobi, Kenya: Feasibility, Usability, and Acceptability Study (Preprint)

2021· preprint· en· W4234530153 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Sarah Ginsburg, Mai‐Lei Woo Kinshella, Violet Naanyu, Jessica Rigg, Dorothy Chomba, Jesse Coleman, Bella Hwang, Roseline Ochieng, J. Mark Ansermino, William Macharia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityHealth careRespondentStaffingNursingThematic analysisHealth facilityMedicineQualitative researchMedical educationMedical emergencyPsychologyEnvironmental healthPopulationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Continuous physiological monitoring technologies are important for strengthening hospital care for neonates, particularly in resource-constrained settings, and understanding user perspectives is critical for informing medical technology design, development, and optimization. OBJECTIVE This study aims to assess the feasibility, usability, and acceptability of 2 noninvasive, multiparameter, continuous physiological monitoring technologies for use in neonates in an African health care setting. METHODS We assessed 2 investigational technologies from EarlySense and Sibel, compared with the reference Masimo Rad-97 technology through in-depth interviews and direct observations. A purposive sample of health care administrators, health care providers, and caregivers at Aga Khan University Hospital, a tertiary, private hospital in Nairobi, Kenya, were included. Data were analyzed using a thematic approach in NVivo 12 software. RESULTS Between July and August 2020, we interviewed 12 health care providers, 5 health care administrators, and 10 caregivers and observed the monitoring of 12 neonates. Staffing and maintenance of training in neonatal units are important feasibility considerations, and simple training requirements support the feasibility of the investigational technologies. Key usability characteristics included ease of use, wireless features, and reduced number of attachments connecting the neonate to the monitoring technology, which health care providers considered to increase the efficiency of care. The main factors supporting acceptability included caregiver-highlighted perceptions of neonate comfort and health care respondent technology familiarity. Concerns about the side effects of wireless connections, electromagnetic fields, and mistrust of unfamiliar technologies have emerged as possible acceptability barriers to investigational technologies. CONCLUSIONS Overall, respondents considered the investigational technologies feasible, usable, and acceptable for the care of neonates at this health care facility. Our findings highlight the potential of different multiparameter continuous physiological monitoring technologies for use in different neonatal care settings. Simple and user-friendly technologies may help to bridge gaps in current care where there are many neonates; however, challenges in maintaining training and ensuring feasibility within resource-constrained health care settings warrant further research. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035184

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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