MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4281289396 · doi:10.2196/29509

Key Drivers and Facilitators of the Choice to Use mHealth Technology in People With Neurological Conditions: Observational Study

2022· article· en· W4281289396 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sara Simblett, Matthew Quaife, Evangelia Theochari, Patrick Burke, Giampaolo Brichetto, Julie Devonshire, Simon Lees, Ann Little, Angie Pullen, Amanda Stoneman, Sarah Thorpe, Janice Weyer, Ashley Polhemus, Jan Novák, Erin Dawe‐Lane, Daniel Morris, Magano Mutepua, Clarissa Odoi, Emma Wilson, Til Wykes

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInnovative Medicines InitiativeEuropean CommissionKing's College LondonMultiple Sclerosis SocietyDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer ResearchEpilepsy ActionEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
KeywordsmHealthVignetteObservational studyMultinomial logistic regressionAffect (linguistics)EpilepsyPsychologyDigital healthLogistic regressionMedicineApplied psychologyClinical psychologyHealth carePsychiatrySocial psychologyComputer sciencePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the potential uses of mobile health (mHealth) technologies, such as wearable biosensors, as supplements for the care of people with neurological conditions. However, adherence is low, especially over long periods. If people are to benefit from these resources, we need a better long-term understanding of what influences patient engagement. Previous research suggests that engagement is moderated by several barriers and facilitators, but their relative importance is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine preferences and the relative importance of user-generated factors influencing engagement with mHealth technologies for 2 common neurological conditions with a relapsing-remitting course: multiple sclerosis (MS) and epilepsy. METHODS: In a discrete choice experiment, people with a diagnosis of MS (n=141) or epilepsy (n=175) were asked to select their preferred technology from a series of 8 vignettes with 4 characteristics: privacy, clinical support, established benefit, and device accuracy; each of these characteristics was greater or lower in each vignette. These characteristics had previously been emphasized by people with MS and or epilepsy as influencing engagement with technology. Mixed multinomial logistic regression models were used to establish which characteristics were most likely to affect engagement. Subgroup analyses explored the effects of demographic factors (such as age, gender, and education), acceptance of and familiarity with mobile technology, neurological diagnosis (MS or epilepsy), and symptoms that could influence motivation (such as depression). RESULTS: Analysis of the responses to the discrete choice experiment validated previous qualitative findings that a higher level of privacy, greater clinical support, increased perceived benefit, and better device accuracy are important to people with a neurological condition. Accuracy was perceived as the most important factor, followed by privacy. Clinical support was the least valued of the attributes. People were prepared to trade a modest amount of accuracy to achieve an improvement in privacy, but less likely to make this compromise for other factors. The type of neurological condition (epilepsy or MS) did not influence these preferences, nor did the age, gender, or mental health status of the participants. Those who were less accepting of technology were the most concerned about privacy and those with a lower level of education were prepared to trade accuracy for more clinical support. CONCLUSIONS: For people with neurological conditions such as epilepsy and MS, accuracy (ie, the ability to detect symptoms) is of the greatest interest. However, there are individual differences, and people who are less accepting of technology may need far greater reassurance about data privacy. People with lower levels of education value greater clinician involvement. These patient preferences should be considered when designing mHealth technologies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies→French-language works237,207→