End Users’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs and Requirements in the Development of a Personalized Integrated Care Platform (PROCare4Life) for Older People With Dementia or Parkinson Disease: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With what has been known as the "triple-win effect", introducing information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the health care of neurodegenerative diseases is beneficial in delaying the need for institutional care, reducing the associated health care costs, reducing the caregiving burden, and improving individuals' quality of life. Nevertheless, the mismatch between the users' expectations and their actual needs remains one of the main challenges that can reduce the usability of technology solutions. Therefore, the European project Personalized Integrated Care Promoting Quality of Life for Older People (PROCare4Life), which aimed to develop an ICT-based platform for all parties involved in the health care of neurodegenerative diseases, adopted a user-centered design approach, where all users are involved from the inception and throughout the platform development and implementation to integrate their needs and requirements in the proposed platform. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the results of a study on the needs and requirements of the potential end users (older people with neurodegenerative diseases, caregivers, and health care professionals) and other key stakeholders in the development of the PROCare4Life platform. METHODS: A mixed qualitative and quantitative study design was used, including 2 web-based surveys, 40 interviews, and 4 workshops. The study was conducted between April and September 2020 in 5 European countries: Germany, Italy, Portugal, Romania, and Spain. Both data types were analyzed separately and then merged and interpreted, with greater priority placed on qualitative research. RESULTS: A total of 217 participants were recruited; 157 (72.4%) of them completed the web-based surveys (n=85, 54.1% patients and n=72, 45.9% caregivers), and 60 (27.6%) individuals participated in the qualitative research (20/60, 33% health care professionals; 5/60, 8% patients; 5/60, 8% caregivers; and 30/60, 50% key stakeholders). We identified 3 main themes (T): (T1) experiences associated with illness, (T2) thoughts about the platform technology, and (T3) desired properties. Alerts for adverse events, communication tools, reminders, and monitoring are constantly needed functionalities, whereas ease of use, personalization, and user-friendliness are foreseen as necessary features. CONCLUSIONS: This paper identified the key personal, social, and health factors that influence the daily lives of the potential end users and reflected on their needs and expectations regarding the design of the proposed PROCare4Life platform. The collected data were useful for the development of the PROCare4Life platform. Although the combination and collection of features for diverse user groups are typical for integrated care platforms, it results in exponential complexity for designers, developers, and users. Contradicting opinions and several concerns in this study demonstrate that an ICT-integrated care platform should not promise too much for too many. Instead, selection, focus, and, sometimes, restriction to essentials are necessary. Users and other stakeholders should be involved in these decisions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/22463.
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 | 0.032 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".