MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391410132 · doi:10.2196/52583

Tailoring of Health-Promotion Video Messaging for Reproductive-Aged Women at Risk for Developing Cardiometabolic Disease: Qualitative Focus-Groups Study

2024· article· en· W4391410132 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jacqueline Kent‐Marvick, Bryan Gibson, Alycia A. Bristol, Stephanie St Clair, Sara E. Simonsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Utah
KeywordsHealth promotionFocus groupQualitative researchDiseaseFocus (optics)Promotion (chess)MedicineGerontologyPublic healthNursingPolitical scienceBusinessSociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Targeting reproductive-aged women at high risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) provides an opportunity for prevention earlier in the life course. A woman's experiences during her reproductive years may have a large impact on her future risk of T2D. Her risk is 7 to 10 times higher if she has had gestational diabetes (GDM). Despite these risks, T2D is preventable. Evidence-based programs, such as the National Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), can reduce the risk of developing T2D by nearly 60%. However, only 0.4% of adults with prediabetes have participated in the DPP to date and reproductive-aged women are 50% less likely to participate than older women. In prior work, our team developed a mobile 360° video to address diabetes risk awareness and promote DPP enrollment among at-risk adults; this video was not designed, however, for reproductive-aged women. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to obtain feedback from reproductive-aged women with cardiometabolic disease risk about a 360° video designed to promote enrollment in the DPP, and to gather suggestions about tailoring video messages to reproductive-aged women. METHODS: Focus groups and a qualitative descriptive approach were used. Women with at least 1 previous pregnancy, aged 18 to 40 years, participated in one of three focus groups stratified by the following health risks: (1) a history of GDM or a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, (2) a diagnosis of prediabetes, or (3) a BMI classified as obese. Focus-group questions addressed several topics; this report shared findings regarding video feedback. The 3 focus-group discussions were conducted via Zoom and were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Deductive codes were used to identify concepts related to the research question and inductive codes were created for novel insights shared by participants. The codes were then organized into categories and themes. RESULTS: The main themes identified were positive feedback, negative feedback, centering motherhood, and the importance of storytelling. While some participants said the video produced a sense of urgency for health-behavior change, all participants agreed that design changes could improve the video's motivating effect on health-behavior change in reproductive-aged women. Participants felt a tailored video should recognize the complexities of being a mother and how these dynamics contribute to women's difficulty engaging in healthy behaviors without stirring feelings of guilt. Women desired a video with a positive, problem-solving perspective, and recommended live links as clickable resources for practical solutions promoting health behavior change. Women suggested using storytelling, both to describe how complications experienced during pregnancy impact long-term health and to motivate health behavior change. CONCLUSIONS: Reproductive-aged women require tailored lifestyle-change messaging that addresses barriers commonly encountered by this population (eg, parenting or work responsibilities). Moreover, messaging should prioritize a positive tone that harnesses storytelling and human connection while offering realistic solutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→