MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4395098963 · doi:10.2196/55548

Remote Inclusion of Vulnerable Users in mHealth Intervention Design: Retrospective Case Analysis

2024· article· en· W4395098963 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ingjerd J Straand, Kimberley A. Baxter, Asbjørn Følstad

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges ForskningsrådQueensland University of TechnologyUniversitetet i StavangerChildren's Hospital Foundation
KeywordsmHealthIntervention (counseling)Inclusion (mineral)Computer scienceInternet privacyMedicinePsychological interventionPsychologyMedical emergencyNursingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions that promote healthy behaviors or mindsets are a promising avenue to reach vulnerable or at-risk groups. In designing such mHealth interventions, authentic representation of intended participants is essential. The COVID-19 pandemic served as a catalyst for innovation in remote user-centered research methods. The capability of such research methods to effectively engage with vulnerable participants requires inquiry into practice to determine the suitability and appropriateness of these methods. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to explore opportunities and considerations that emerged from involving vulnerable user groups remotely when designing mHealth interventions. Implications and recommendations are presented for researchers and practitioners conducting remote user-centered research with vulnerable populations. METHODS: Remote user-centered research practices from 2 projects involving vulnerable populations in Norway and Australia were examined retrospectively using visual mapping and a reflection-on-action approach. The projects engaged low-income and unemployed groups during the COVID-19 pandemic in user-based evaluation and testing of interactive, web-based mHealth interventions. RESULTS: Opportunities and considerations were identified as (1) reduced barriers to research inclusion; (2) digital literacy transition; (3) contextualized insights: a window into people's lives; (4) seamless enactment of roles; and (5) increased flexibility for researchers and participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the capability and suitability of remote user methods to engage with users from vulnerable groups. Remote methods facilitate recruitment, ease the burden of research participation, level out power imbalances, and provide a rich and relevant environment for user-centered evaluation of mHealth interventions. There is a potential for a much more agile research practice. Future research should consider the privacy impacts of increased access to participants' environment via webcams and screen share and how technology mediates participants' action in terms of privacy. The development of support procedures and tools for remote testing of mHealth apps with user participants will be crucial to capitalize on efficiency gains and better protect participants' privacy.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.402 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→