Adapting a Telephone-Based, Dyadic Self-management Program to Be Delivered Over the Web: Methodology and Usability Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the need for web-based behavioral interventions to support individuals who are diagnosed with chronic conditions and their informal caregivers. However, most interventions focus on patient outcomes. Dyadic technology-enabled interventions that simultaneously improve outcomes for patients and caregivers are needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the methodology used to adapt a telephone-based, facilitated, and dyadic self-management program called Self-care Using Collaborative Coping Enhancement in Diseases (SUCCEED) into a self-guided, web-based version (web-SUCCEED) and to conduct usability testing for web-SUCCEED. METHODS: We developed web-SUCCEED in 6 steps: ideation-determine the intervention content areas; prototyping-develop the wireframes, illustrating the look and feel of the website; prototype refinement via feedback from focus groups; finalizing the module content; programming web-SUCCEED; and usability testing. A diverse team of stakeholders including content experts, web designers, patients, and caregivers provided input at various stages of development. Costs, including full-time equivalent employee, were summarized. RESULTS: At the ideation stage, we determined the content of web-SUCCEED based on feedback from the program's original pilot study. At the prototyping stage, the principal investigator and web designers iteratively developed prototypes that included inclusive design elements (eg, large font size). Feedback about these prototypes was elicited through 2 focus groups of veterans with chronic conditions (n=13). Rapid thematic analysis identified two themes: (1) web-based interventions can be useful for many but should include ways to connect with other users and (2) prototypes were sufficient to elicit feedback about the esthetics, but a live website allowing for continual feedback and updating would be better. Focus group feedback was incorporated into building a functional website. In parallel, the content experts worked in small groups to adapt SUCCEED's content, so that it could be delivered in a didactic, self-guided format. Usability testing was completed by veterans (8/16, 50%) and caregivers (8/16, 50%). Veterans and caregivers gave web-SUCCEED high usability scores, noting that it was easy to understand, easy to use, and not overly burdensome. Notable negative feedback included "slightly agreeing" that the site was confusing and awkward. All veterans (8/8, 100%) agreed that they would choose this type of program in the future to access an intervention that aims to improve their health. Developing and maintaining the software and hosting together cost approximately US $100,000, excluding salary and fringe benefits for project personnel (steps 1-3: US $25,000; steps 4-6: US $75,000). CONCLUSIONS: Adapting an existing, facilitated self-management support program for delivery via the web is feasible, and such programs can remotely deliver content. Input from a multidisciplinary team of experts and stakeholders can ensure the program's success. Those interested in adapting programs should have a realistic estimate of the budget and staffing requirements.
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 | 0.030 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".