Evaluation of an mHealth App on Self-Management of Osteoporosis: Prospective Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) technologies can be used for disease-specific self-management, and these technologies are experiencing rapid growth in the health care industry. They use mobile devices, specifically smartphone apps, to enhance and support medical and public health practices. In chronic disease management, the use of apps in the realm of mHealth holds the potential to improve health outcomes. This is also true for mHealth apps on osteoporosis, but the usage and patients' experiences with these apps are underexplored. OBJECTIVE: This prospective survey study aimed to investigate the eHealth literacy of Danish patients with osteoporosis, as well as the usability and acceptability of the app "My Bones." METHODS: Data on patient characteristics, disease knowledge, eHealth literacy, usability, and acceptability were collected using self-administered questionnaires at baseline, 2 months, and 6 months. The following validated questionnaires were used: eHealth Literacy Questionnaire, System Usability Scale, and Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire. RESULTS: Mean scores for eHealth literacy ranged from 2.6 to 3.1, with SD ranging from 0.5 to 0.6 across the 7 domains. The mean (SD) System Usability Scale score was 74.7 (14.4), and the mean (SD) scores for domains 1, 2, and 6 of the Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire were 3.4 (1.2), 4.5 (1.1), 4.1 (1.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Danish patients with osteoporosis are both motivated and capable of using digital health services. The app's usability was acceptable, and it has the potential to reduce visits to general practitioner clinics, enhance health outcomes, and serve as a valuable addition to regular health or social care services.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".