MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399881406 · doi:10.2196/53131

Preferences, Needs, and Values of Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Attending a Telehealth Service: Qualitative Interview Study

2024· article· en· W4399881406 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Camilla Wong Schmidt, Karen Borgnakke, Anne Frølich, Lars Kayser

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeRegion Sjælland
KeywordsTelehealthPulmonary diseaseQualitative researchMedicinePhysical therapyService (business)GerontologyTelemedicineFamily medicineInternal medicineHealth careSociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Digitally assisted health care services and technologies are gaining popularity. They assist patients in managing their conditions, thereby reducing the burden on health care staff. Digital health care enables individuals to receive care that is more tailored to their needs and preferences. When implemented properly, it can promote equity by considering each person's opportunities and limitations in the context of health care needs, preferences, values, and capabilities. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the needs, values, and preferences of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are provided with a 24/7 digital health care service. Furthermore, we aim to understand the dynamics of the communities to which they belong and how these communities intersect. This will provide us with the essential knowledge to establish new methods of providing education, including the development of educational activities for health professionals to engage, train, and empower people living with COPD. METHODS: The study included 7 informants diagnosed with COPD who received 24/7 digital health care service support from a regional project in Region Zealand, Denmark. The informants were visited 4 times during 2 months, including a "Hello" visit, a day with a semistructured interview, and 2 days with field observations. The informants participated in a semistructured interview, following participant observation and an ethnographic approach. The interview content was analyzed using an inductive methodology to categorize the empirical data. RESULTS: Using the inductive approach, we identified 3 main categories related to the informants' needs, values, and preferences: (1) Health, (2) Value Creation, and (3) Resources. These 3 main categories were based on 9 subcategories: (1) health and barriers, (2) self-monitoring, (3) medication, (4) behavior, (5) motivation, (6) hobbies, (7) social networks, (8) health professionals, and (9) technology. These findings revealed that the informants placed value on maintaining their daily activities and preserving their sense of identity before the onset of COPD. Furthermore, they expressed a desire not to be defined by their COPD, as conversations about COPD often shifted away from the topic. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health solutions and the health care professionals who offer them should prioritize the individuals they serve, considering their needs, values, and preferences rather than solely focusing on the medical condition. This approach ensures the highest level of daily living and empowerment for those living with long-term health conditions. The communities surrounding individuals must engage in constant interaction and collaboration. They should work together to incorporate people's needs, values, and preferences into future digital health services, thereby promoting empowerment and self-management. New educational programs aimed at developing the digital health service competencies of registered nurses should facilitate collaboration between the 2 communities. This collaboration is essential for supporting patients with long-term health conditions in their daily activities.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207