MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382814816 · doi:10.1177/20552076231183555

Usability evaluation of a self-management mobile application for individuals with a mild traumatic brain injury

2023· article· en· W4382814816 on OpenAlex
Marquise M. Bonn, Laura J. Graham, Stephanie Marrocco, Samantha Jeske, Becky Moran, Dalton L. Wolfe

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsParkwood InstituteLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupThematic analysisUsabilitymHealthPsychologyDescriptive statisticsApplied psychologyAdaptabilityQualitative researchClinical psychologyMedicineComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBIs) are common and may result in persisting symptoms. Mobile health (mHealth) applications enhance treatment access and rehabilitation. However, there is limited evidence to support mHealth applications for individuals with an mTBI. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate user experiences and perceptions of the Parkwood Pacing and Planning™ application, an mHealth application developed to help individuals manage their symptoms following an mTBI. The secondary purpose of this study was to identify strategies to improve the application. This study was conducted as part of the development process for this application. Methods: A mixed methods co-design encompassing an interactive focus group and a follow-up survey was conducted with patient and clinician-participants (n = 8, four per group). Each group participated in a focus group consisting of an interactive scenario-based review of the application. Additionally, participants completed the Internet Evaluation and Utility Questionnaire (UQ). Qualitative analysis on the interactive focus group recordings and notes was performed using phenomenological reflection through thematic analyses. Quantitative analysis included descriptive statistics of demographic information and UQ responses. Results: On average, clinician and patient-participants positively rated the application on the UQ (4.0 ± .3, 3.8 ± .2, respectively). User experiences and recommendations for improving the application were categorized into four themes: simplicity, adaptability, conciseness, and familiarity. Conclusion: Preliminary analyses indicates patients and clinicians have a positive experience when using the Parkwood Pacing and Planning™ application. However, modifications that improve simplicity, adaptability, conciseness, and familiarity may further improve the user's experience.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.323 · 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