Digital Health Secondary Prevention Using Co-Design Procedures: Focus Group Study With Health Care Providers and Patients With Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myocardial infarction (MI) is a debilitating condition and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Digital health is a promising approach for delivering secondary prevention to support patients with a history of MI and for reducing risk factors that can lead to a future event. However, its potential can only be fulfilled when the technology meets the needs of the end users who will be interacting with this secondary prevention. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to gauge the opinions of patients with a history of MI and health professionals concerning the functions, features, and characteristics of a digital health solution to support post-MI care. METHODS: Our approach aligned with the gold standard participatory co-design procedures enabling progressive refinement of feedback via exploratory, confirmatory, and prototype-assisted feedback from participants. Patients with a history of MI and health professionals from Australia attended focus groups over a videoconference system. We engaged with 38 participants across 3 rounds of focus groups using an iterative co-design approach. Round 1 included 8 participants (4 patients and 4 health professionals), round 2 included 24 participants (11 patients and 13 health professionals), and round 3 included 22 participants (14 patients and 8 health professionals). RESULTS: Participants highlighted the potential of digital health in addressing the unmet needs of post-MI care. Both patients with a history of MI and health professionals agreed that mental health is a key concern in post-MI care that requires further support. Participants agreed that family members can be used to support postdischarge care and require support from the health care team. Participants agreed that incorporating simple games with a points system can increase long-term engagement. However, patients with a history of MI emphasized a lack of support from their health care team, family, and community more strongly than health professionals. They also expressed some openness to using artificial intelligence, whereas health professionals expressed that users should not be aware of artificial intelligence use. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide valuable insights into the development of digital health secondary preventions aimed at supporting patients with a history of MI. Future research can implement a pilot study in the population with MI to trial these recommendations in a real-world setting.
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 | 0.043 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".