MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292088868 · doi:10.2196/26925

Patients’ and Health Care Providers’ Perceptions on mHealth Use After High-Altitude Climate Therapy for Severe Asthma: Mixed Methods Study

2022· article· en· W4292088868 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rishi Khusial, Sophia M van Koppen, Persijn Honkoop, Lucia H. Rijssenbeek‐Nouwens, Karin B. Fieten, Sascha M. Keij, Marieke Drijver-Messelink, Jacob K. Sont

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaMedicinemHealthFocus groupPhysical therapyMultidisciplinary approachFamily medicineNursingInternal medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common chronic disease with various clinical presentations. Although most patients are able to reach good asthma control, some patients are not able to reach sufficient asthma control following the regular treatment guidelines and could be referred to high-altitude climate therapy (HACT). HACT includes environmental trigger avoidance in the alpine climate with multidisciplinary clinical treatment. Patients with severe and difficult-to-control asthma, who are unable to reach asthma control at sea level, can follow a 12-week lung rehabilitation program at 1600 m above sea level. Mobile health (mHealth) tools can be used to enhance self-management in these patients when they return home. For an mHealth system to be effective, it must meet the expectations of the end users. OBJECTIVE: In this Davos@home study, we explored the attitudes toward mHealth aimed at supporting the self-management of patients with severe, difficult-to-control asthma who underwent HACT and asthma health care providers. METHODS: In the first stage, interviews with referrers to HACT and focus groups with patients with asthma who participated in or completed HACT were conducted. The data were then analyzed thematically. On the basis of these results, a questionnaire was developed. In the second stage of the study, this questionnaire, combined with the Asthma Control Questionnaire and the Individual Innovativeness Questionnaire, was provided to patients who completed HACT. RESULTS: In total, 11 interviews and 3 focus groups (n=18, age 47.6, SD 12.1 years, Asthma Control Questionnaire score 2.6, SD 1.0) were conducted. A total of 3 themes were identified: potential goals, useful measurements, and perceived barriers and facilitators. The questionnaire developed in stage 2 included items based on these results. The most agreed-upon goal among the 52 patients who completed the questionnaire was to increase their asthma control (45/52, 86% of the patients). CONCLUSIONS: Different patients reported that they would benefit the most from different functionalities. Therefore, it is important to tailor functionalities to individual (treatment) goals. When developing an mHealth intervention, it is important to allow personalization to avoid overwhelming the users.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207