MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387598645 · doi:10.1002/gps.6014

Co‐design of a digital app “WhatMatters” to support person‐centred care: A critical reflection

2023· article· en· W4387598645 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

VenueInternational Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPersona Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of WaterlooVancouver Community CollegeEmily Carr University of Art and DesignUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReflection (computer programming)Critical reflectionPsychologyComputer sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People with dementia often do not receive optimal person-centred care (PCC) in care settings. Family members can play a vital role as care partners to support the person with dementia with their psychosocial needs. Participatory research that includes the perspectives of those with lived experience is essential for developing high-quality dementia care and practices. OBJECTIVE: Throughout 2021-2022, a mobile app, called WhatMatters, was co-developed to provide easy-to-access and personalised support for people with dementia in hospitals and long-term care homes, with input from patients/residents, family partners and healthcare staff. This article discusses and critically reflects on the experiences of patients/residents, family partners, and healthcare staff involved in the co-design process. METHODS: For the app development, we applied a participatory co-design approach, guided by a User Experience (UX) model. The process involved co-design workshops and user testing sessions with users (patients/residents, family partners, healthcare staff) to co-develop the WhatMatters prototype. We also conducted focus groups and one on one interviews with staff and caregiver participants to explore their experiences. Our research team, which also included patient partners, took part in regular team meetings during the app's development, where we discussed and reflected on the co-design process. Reflexive thematic analysis was performed to identify themes that represent the challenges and rewarding experiences of the users involved in the co-design process, which guided our overall reflective process. FINDINGS: Our reflective analysis identified five themes (1) clarifying the co-design process, (2) ensuring inclusive collaborations of various users, and (3) supporting expression of emotion in a virtual environment, (4) feeling a sense of achievement and (5) feeling valued. IMPLICATIONS: WhatMatters offers potential for providing personally relevant and engaging resources in dementia care. Including the voices of relevant users is crucial to ensure meaningful benefits for patients/residents. We offer insights and lessons learned about the co-design process, and explore the challenges of involving people with lived experiences of dementia in co-design work, particularly during the pandemic.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.291 · 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