MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310053473 · doi:10.1177/14604086221129385

Development and evaluation of a mobile application trauma registry for use in low- and middle-income countries

2022· article· en· W4310053473 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsReferralMedicineExpectancy theoryLikert scaleQualitative researchHealth careFamily medicineMedical emergencyNursingPsychologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Trauma registries are a means for improving trauma care in low- and middle-income countries, though a number of challenges for the sustainability of these trauma registries exist. Mobile health applications represent a promising technology for low- and middle-income country trauma registries. The development, implementation and evaluation of a mobile application trauma registry for use at the Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital, Uganda is demonstrated. Methods A paper-based trauma registry was implemented at the Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital. Based on feedback from local stakeholders, this was developed into an open-source mobile application version of the trauma registry. The mobile application was evaluated by 17 healthcare workers using a modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology questionnaire and qualitative analysis. Results Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology scores showed the majority of participants responding positively to the major constructs of Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence and Facilitating Conditions, with mean Likert scores (out of 7) of 6.41 (±1.43), 6.25 (±1.41), 5.44 (±1.43) and 5.32 (±1.99), respectively. There was also a young average user age (29.1 years). Qualitative analysis identified response themes of ease of use, efficiency and potential for future research and clinical use; users also suggested expansion of the type of platforms the application was available on. Conclusion Though a number of challenges exist for sustaining trauma registries in low- and middle-income countries, substantial involvement of local stakeholders and responsiveness to feedback should be used to facilitate the use of these technologies in developing countries. This study demonstrates a potential methodology for developing and evaluating trauma registry technologies for use in low- and middle-income countries.

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.

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)0.003
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 score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.315 · 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