Designing eHealth interventions for children with complex care needs requires continuous stakeholder collaboration and co-creation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Hospital-to-home (H2H) transitions challenge families of children with medical complexity (CMC) and healthcare professionals (HCP). This study aimed to gain deeper insights into the H2H transition process and to work towards eHealth interventions for its improvement, by applying an iterative methodology involving both CMC families and HCP as end-users. Methods: For 20-weeks, the Dutch Transitional Care Unit consortium collaborated with the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, HCP, and CMC families. The agile SCREAM approach was used, merging Design Thinking methods into five iterative sprints to stimulate creativity, ideation, and design. Continuous communication allowed rapid adaptation to new information and the refinement of solutions for subsequent sprints. Results: This iterative process revealed three domains of care - care coordination, social wellbeing, and emotional support - that were important to all stakeholders. These domains informed the development of our final prototype, 'Our Care Team', an application tailored to meet the H2H transition needs for CMC families and HCP. Conclusion: Complex processes like the H2H transition for CMC families require adaptive interventions that empower all stakeholders in their respective roles, to promote transitional care that is anticipatory, rather than reactive. Innovation: them.
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 | 0.027 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".