Designing, Developing, and Efficiency Evaluation of a Smartphone Application for Blood Donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to design, develop, and evaluate efficiency of a human-based “U-Blood App” prototype for blood unavailability in Thailand. This study adopted a mixed-method design. The results of the study revealed these key findings. First, the needs analysis of 32 key informants (50% males and a mean age of 40.6 years) indicated that the features of the User Experience (UE) and the User Interface (UI) should contain blood donor’s qualification, general information record of the blood donor’s health, blood donation appointment and notification schedule, the application download and installation, a simple guide for the application user, the hospital logo, and necessary information. Second, the evaluation by experts revealed that the quality of the prototype is high (X¯=4.79) and the quality of UI ( X¯=4.79) was higher than that of UE (X¯=4.70). Lastly, the end users of 65 samples (50.76\% females and a mean age of 48 years) are highly satisfied with the prototype (X¯=4.68). The findings advanced the understanding of the impacts of human factors on the development of smart phone application for blood donation. The overall results cannot be generalized in the long term. Future inquiry should work on this limitation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".