MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388822895 · doi:10.2196/45035

Design of a Dyadic Digital Health Module for Chronic Disease Shared Care: Development Study

2023· article· en· W4388822895 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Camila Benmessaoud, Kaylen J. Pfisterer, Anjelica De Leon, Ashish Saragadam, Noor El‐Dassouki, Karen Young, Raima Lohani, Ting Xiong, Quỳnh Phạm

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaPublic Health OntarioHumber PolytechnicUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth literacyHealth careThematic analysisUsabilityPsychologyDigital healthIntegrated carePopulationLiteracyNursingQualitative researchMedicineKnowledge managementComputer scienceSociologyPedagogyHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced the spread of digital health tools to address limited clinical resources for chronic health management. It also illuminated a population of older patients requiring an informal caregiver (IC) to access this care due to accessibility, technological literacy, or English proficiency concerns. For patients with heart failure (HF), this rapid transition exacerbated the demand on ICs and pushed Canadians toward a dyadic care model where patients and ICs comanage care. Our previous work identified an opportunity to improve this dyadic HF experience through a shared model of dyadic digital health. We call this alternative model of care "Caretown for Medly," which empowers ICs to concurrently expand patients' self-care abilities while acknowledging ICs' eagerness to provide greater support. OBJECTIVE: We present the systematic design and development of the Caretown for Medly dyadic management module. While HF is the outlined use case, we outline our design methodology and report on 6 core disease-invariant features applied to dyadic shared care for HF management. This work lays the foundation for future usability assessments of Caretown for Medly. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative, human-centered design study based on 25 semistructured interviews with self-identified ICs of loved ones living with HF. Interviews underwent thematic content analysis by 2 coders independently for themes derived deductively (eg, based on the interview guide) and inductively refined. To build the Caretown for Medly model, we (1) leveraged the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework to translate knowledge into action and (2) borrowed Google Sprint's ability to quickly "solve big problems and test new ideas," which has been effective in the medical and digital health spaces. Specifically, we blended these 2 concepts into a new framework called the "KTA Sprint." RESULTS: We identified 6 core disease-invariant features to support ICs in care dyads to provide more effective care while capitalizing on dyadic care's synergistic benefits. Features were designed for customizability to suit the patient's condition, informed by stakeholder analysis, corroborated with literature, and vetted through user needs assessments. These features include (1) live reports to enhance data sharing and facilitate appropriate IC support, (2) care cards to enhance guidance on the caregiving role, (3) direct messaging to dissolve the disconnect across the circle of care, (4) medication wallet to improve guidance on managing complex medication regimens, (5) medical events timeline to improve and consolidate management and organization, and (6) caregiver resources to provide disease-specific education and support their self-care. CONCLUSIONS: These disease-invariant features were designed to address ICs' needs in supporting their care partner. We anticipate that the implementation of these features will empower a shared model of care for chronic disease management through digital health and will improve outcomes for care dyads.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207