Facilitating In-House Mobile App Development Within Psychiatric Outpatient Services for Patients Diagnosed With Borderline Personality Disorder: Rapid Application Development Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile app development within mental health is often time- and resource-consuming, challenging the development of mobile apps for psychiatry. There is a continuum of software development methods ranging from linear (waterfall model) to continuous adaption (Scrum). Rapid application development (RAD) is a model that so far has not been applied to psychiatric settings and may have some advantages over other models. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the utility of the RAD model in developing a mobile app for patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) in a psychiatric outpatient setting. METHODS: The 4 phases of the RAD model: (1) requirements planning, (2) user design, (3) construction, and (4) cutover, were applied to develop a mobile app within psychiatric outpatient services for patients diagnosed with BPD. RESULTS: For the requirements planning phase, a short time frame was selected to minimize the time between product conceptualization and access within a clinical setting. Evidenced-based interactive content already developed was provided by current staff to enhance usability and trustworthiness. For the user design phase, activity with video themes and a discrete number of functions were used to improve the app functionality and graphical user interface. For the construction phase, close collaboration between clinicians, researchers, and software developers yielded a fully functional, in-house-developed app ready to be tested in clinical practice. For the cutover phase, the mobile app was tested successfully with a small number (n=5) of patients with a BPD. CONCLUSIONS: The RAD model could be meaningfully applied in a psychiatric setting to develop an app for BPD within a relatively short time period from conceptualization to implementation in the clinic. Short time frames and identifying a limited number of stakeholders with relevant skills in-house facilitated the use of this model. Despite some limitations, RAD could be a useful model in the development of apps for clinical populations to enable development and access to evidence-based technology.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".