Using Principles of Digital Development for a Smartphone App to Support Data Collection in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Physical Activity Intolerance: Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advances in health have highlighted the need to implement technologies as a fundamental part of the diagnosis, treatment, and recovery of patients at risk of or with health alterations. For this purpose, digital platforms have demonstrated their applicability in the identification of care needs. Nursing is a fundamental component in the care of patients with cardiovascular disorders and plays a crucial role in diagnosing human responses to these health conditions. Consequently, the validation of nursing diagnoses through ongoing research processes has become a necessity that can significantly impact both patients and health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the process of developing a mobile app to validate the nursing diagnosis "intolerance to physical activity" in patients with acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: We describe the development and pilot-testing of a mobile system to support data collection for validating the nursing diagnosis of activity intolerance. This was a descriptive study conducted with 11 adults (aged ≥18 years) who attended a health institution for highly complex needs with a suspected diagnosis of coronary syndrome between August and September 2019 in Floridablanca, Colombia. An app for the clinical validation of activity intolerance (North American Nursing Diagnosis Association [NANDA] code 00092) in patients with acute coronary syndrome was developed in two steps: (1) operationalization of the nursing diagnosis and (2) the app development process, which included an evaluation of the initial requirements, development and digitization of the forms, and a pilot test. The agreement level between the 2 evaluating nurses was evaluated with the κ index. RESULTS: We developed a form that included sociodemographic data, hospital admission data, medical history, current pharmacological treatment, and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score (TIMI-RS) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) scores. To identify the defining characteristics, we included official guidelines, physiological measurements, and scales such as the Piper fatigue scale and Borg scale. Participants in the pilot test (n=11) had an average age of 63.2 (SD 4.0) years and were 82% (9/11) men; 18% (2/11) had incomplete primary schooling. The agreement between the evaluators was approximately 80% for most of the defining characteristics. The most prevalent characteristics were exercise discomfort (10/11, 91%), weakness (7/11, 64%), dyspnea (3/11, 27%), abnormal heart rate in response to exercise (2/10, 20%), electrocardiogram abnormalities (1/10, 9%), and abnormal blood pressure in response to activity (1/10, 10%). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a mobile app for validating the diagnosis of "activity intolerance." Its use will guarantee not only optimal data collection, minimizing errors to perform validation, but will also allow the identification of individual care needs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".