Designing and Evaluating IT Applications for Informal Caregivers: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing number of informal caregivers in many countries are important for effective functioning of health care in our society. Hence, they must receive the required support and services to continue providing care. IT applications can be used to support informal caregivers in their caregiving activities. However, evidence-informed guidelines for developing such IT applications and their evaluation are scarce. Hence, this scoping review can aid researchers and designers by providing design recommendations for IT apps for caregivers and potentially improve the design of IT applications for caregivers to meet their needs better. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the proposal for a scoping review of current practices and recommendations in designing and evaluating IT applications for informal caregivers. The scoping review will also discuss the opportunities and challenges in designing these IT applications. METHODS: We will use a 5-step scoping review methodology to map relevant literature published as follows: (1) identify the research question, (2) identify relevant studies, (3) select relevant studies for review, (4) chart the data from selected literature, and (5) summarize and report results. A structured search will be conducted in PubMed, Scopus, IEEE digital library, Web of Science, and ACM Digital Library databases. In addition, hand searches of reference lists and keyword searches in Google Scholar will also be conducted. Inclusion criteria will be researched (journal and conference) articles focused on IT applications designed for use by informal caregivers and study type to be qualitative studies. Two reviewers will independently identify articles for review and extract data. Conflicts will be discussed, and a third reviewer will be consulted if a consensus cannot be reached. These data will be analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The results from this scoping review will be presented in a narrative form, and additional data on study characteristics will be presented in diagrams or tabular format. Uppsala University first initiated this scoping review protocol in December 2021 as part of the European Union-funded project ENTWINE. This work was also supported by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Cancer Society. The results will be presented in August 2023 and will be disseminated through a report to the European Union and a peer-reviewed journal publication. In addition, the team plans to share its findings on various public platforms, including social media, blog posts, and relevant conferences and workshops. CONCLUSIONS: This is, to our knowledge, the first study to map the literature on the design and evaluation of IT applications for informal caregivers. The scoping review's results will detail the requirements, design suggestions, and user preferences, as well as the usability criteria and features of IT applications for informal caregivers. A mapping of studies could inform the design and implementation of future IT applications for informal caregivers. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/47650.
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 | 0.164 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.019 |
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".