MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283786988 · doi:10.1093/eurjcn/zvac060.049

Do eHealth literacy and socio-demographics predict patients' preferences for use of eHealth programmes after percutaneous coronary intervention?

2022· article· en· W4283786988 on OpenAlexaff
Gunhild Brørs, Irene Instenes, N Hjertvikrem, Henrik Dalen, Bengt Fridlund, Cameron D. Norman, Pernille Palm, Tore Wentzel‐Larsen, Tone M. Norekvål

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthMedicineHealth literacyConventional PCIPsychological interventionFamily medicineLiteracyPercutaneous coronary interventionHealth careGerontologyNursingInternal medicinePsychologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): The Western Norway Health Authority Background Evidence supports the use of electronic health (eHealth) programmes for patients with coronary artery disease. To date, there has been little attention toward patients’ preferences for the use of eHealth programmes, and their associations with eHealth literacy and socio-demographic factors post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Purpose To determine how eHealth literacy and socio-demographics are associated with patients’ preferences for use of eHealth programmes assessed 12-month post PCI. Methods An observational cohort study recruited 3417 adult patients treated by PCI at three Norwegian and four Danish university hospitals, June 2017-May 2019. Socio-demographic data and self-reported outcomes on eHealth literacy (eHealth literacy scale) were assessed at baseline. De novo questions on preferences for use of eHealth programmes were collected 12-month post PCI. Hierarchical logistic regression models were performed. Results The majority of patients were men (78%), and the mean age was 66 years. Almost 40% were interested in participating in eHealth programmes. The odds of being interested in accessing a webpage with quality ensured information, health applications and online chat function with healthcare providers increased with 2-3% for each point higher eHealth literacy score, which indicates better eHealth literacy. After controlling for age, education and gender (Step 2), eHealth literacy no longer remained a significant predictor for patients’ preferences. Males had 49% higher odds for interest in a webpage with quality ensured information than females. Females had 33-34% higher odds for interest in an online chat function with healthcare providers and an individually tailored text message. The odds for interest in a webpage with quality ensured information, health applications, online chat function with healthcare providers and individually tailored text messages, decreased with 2-5% per year higher age. For individual tailored feedback on email, the odds for interes was 1% higher per year higher age. Educational level above primary school was a robust predictor for the interest in a webpage with quality ensured information (63-240%). Compared to those with primary school education level, those with college/university education had 67% higher odds for interest in short online information videos, 123% higher odds for interest in online chat function with healthcare providers and 61% higher odds for interest in individually tailored feedback on email compared to patients’ whit primary school. Patients with high school and college/university education had 34-57% lower odds for interest in individually tailored text messages than those with primary school. Conclusions Age, educational level and gender were important predictors of patients’ preferences for using eHealth programmes post PCI. These results are important for the further development of personalized eHealth programmes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.368
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 teacher head, 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular NursingSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207