Primary Care Pre-Visit Electronic Patient Questionnaire for Asthma: Uptake Analysis and Predictor Modeling (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND mHealth tablet-based interventions are increasingly being studied and deployed in various health care settings, yet little knowledge exists regarding patient uptake and acceptance or how patient demographics influence these important implementation metrics. OBJECTIVE To determine which factors influence the uptake and successful completion of an mHealth tablet questionnaire by analyzing its implementation in a primary care setting. METHODS We prospectively studied a patient-facing electronic touch-tablet asthma questionnaire deployed as part of the Electronic Asthma Management System. We describe tablet uptake and completion rates and corresponding predictor models for these behaviors. RESULTS The tablet was offered to and accepted by patients in 891/1715 (52.0%) visits. Patients refused the tablet in 33.0% (439/1330) visits in which it was successfully offered. Patients aged older than 65 years of age (odds ratio [OR] 2.30, 95% CI 1.33-3.95) and with concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.05-4.67) were more likely to refuse the tablet, and those on an asthma medication (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30-0.99) were less likely to refuse it. Once accepted, the questionnaire was completed in 784/891 (88.0%) instances, with those on an asthma medication (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.88) being less likely to leave it incomplete. CONCLUSIONS Older age predicted initial tablet refusal but not tablet questionnaire completion, suggesting that perceptions of mHealth among older adults may negatively impact uptake, independent of usability. The influence of being on an asthma medication suggests that disease severity may also mediate mHealth acceptance. Although use of mHealth questionnaires is growing rapidly across health care settings and diseases, few studies describe their real-world acceptance and its predictors. Our results should be complemented by qualitative methods to identify barriers and enablers to uptake and may inform technological and implementation strategies to drive successful usage.
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 | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".