Acceptance and User Experiences of a Wearable Device for the Management of Hospitalized Patients in COVID-19–Designated Wards in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: Action Learning Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wearable devices have been used extensively both inside and outside of the hospital setting. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in some contexts, there was an increased need to remotely monitor pulse and saturated oxygen for patients due to the lack of staff and bedside monitors. OBJECTIVE: A prototype of a remote monitoring system using wearable pulse oximeter devices was implemented at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, from August to December 2021. The aim of this work was to support the ongoing implementation of the remote monitoring system. METHODS: We used an action learning approach with rapid pragmatic methods, including informal discussions and observations as well as a feedback survey form designed based on the technology acceptance model to assess the use and acceptability of the system. Based on these results, we facilitated a meeting using user-centered design principles to explore user needs and ideas about its development in more detail. RESULTS: In total, 21 users filled in the feedback form. The mean technology acceptance model scores ranged from 3.5 (for perceived ease of use) to 4.4 (for attitude) with behavioral intention (3.8) and perceived usefulness (4.2) scoring in between. Those working as nurses scored higher on perceived usefulness, attitude, and behavioral intention than did physicians. Based on informal discussions, we realized there was a mismatch between how we (ie, the research team) and the ward teams perceived the use and wider purpose of the technology. CONCLUSIONS: Designing and implementing the devices to be more nurse-centric from their introduction could have helped to increase their efficiency and use during the complex pandemic period.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".