A Personalized and Interactive Web-Based Advance Care Planning Intervention for Older Adults (Koda Health): Pilot Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that involves patients expressing their personal goals, values, and future medical care preferences. Digital applications may help facilitate this process, though their use in older adults has not been adequately studied. Objective: This pilot study aimed to evaluate the reach, adoption, and usability of Koda Health, a web-based patient-facing ACP platform, among older adults. Methods: Older adults (aged 50 years and older) who had an active Epic MyChart account at an academic health care system in North Carolina were recruited to participate. A total of 2850 electronic invitations were sent through MyChart accounts with an embedded hyperlink to the Koda platform. Participants who agreed to participate were asked to complete pre- and posttest surveys before and after navigating through the Koda Health platform. Primary outcomes were reach, adoption, and System Usability Scale (SUS) scores. Exploratory outcomes included ACP knowledge and readiness. Results: A total of 161 participants enrolled in the study and created an account on the platform (age: mean 63, SD 9.3 years), with 80% (129/161) of these participants going on to complete all steps of the intervention, thereby generating an advance directive. Participants reported minimal difficulty in using the Koda platform, with an overall SUS score of 76.2. Additionally, knowledge of ACP (eg, mean increase from 3.2 to 4.2 on 5-point scale; P<.001) and readiness (eg, mean increase from 2.6 to 3.2 on readiness to discuss ACP with health care provider; P<.001) significantly increased from before to after the intervention. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the Koda Health platform is feasible, had above-average usability, and improved ACP documentation of preferences in older adults. Our findings indicate that web-based health tools like Koda may help older individuals learn about and feel more comfortable with ACP while potentially facilitating greater engagement in care planning.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".