MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403817026 · doi:10.2196/53657

Caregiver and Youth Characteristics That Influence Trust in Digital Health Platforms in Pediatric Care: Mixed Methods Study

2024· article· en· W4403817026 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Eric Chow, Alice Virani, Susan Pinkney, Fatema S. Abdulhussein, Tibor van Rooij, Matthias Görges, Wyeth W. Wasserman, Jeffrey N. Bone, Holly Longstaff, Shazhan Amed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsProvincial Health Services AuthorityBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCBC Children's HospitalChildren's Hospital Foundation
KeywordsHealth careeHealthPopulationDigital healthPsychologyFamily medicineMedicineGerontologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Combining patient-generated health data and digital health platforms may improve patient experience and population health, mitigate rising health care costs, reduce clinician burnout, and enable health equity. However, lack of trust may be a notable barrier to the data-sharing required by such platforms. Understanding sociodemographic, health, and personal characteristics will enable developers and implementers of such technologies to consider these in their technical design requirements. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand relationships between sociodemographic characteristics of caregivers of children or adolescents and trust in and willingness to use digital platforms to store and share personal health information for clinical care and research. METHODS: This study used a mixed methods approach, including surveys of caregivers of youth aged <18 years living in Canada or the United States and youth aged 16 to 17 years living in Canada, as well as web-based bulletin board discussions to further explore topics of trust in data sharing. Sociodemographic and survey data were tabulated and explored using proportional odds ordinal regression models. Comments from web-based group discussions were analyzed thematically using a coding approach to identify issues important to the participants. RESULTS: Survey data from 1128 caregivers (female participants: n=549, 48.7%; 36-50 years old: n=660, 58.5%; Canadian: n=603, 53.5%; urban population: n=494, 43.8%) were collected, of which 685 (60.7%) completed all questions. Data from 173 youth (female participants: n=73, 42.2%; urban population: n=94, 54.3%) were collected, of which 129 (74.6%) completed all questions, and data were available for analysis. Furthermore, among 40 participants, 23 (58%) caregivers contributed to the web-based discussion boards. Related to trust, living in a rural area (vs urban; odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% CI 0.46-0.95) resulted in lower concern for data privacy and security, while having an undergraduate (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.30-2.55) or graduate degree (vs secondary or trade school; OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.68-3.73) resulted in higher levels of concern. Living with a chronic disease (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.35-2.44) increased levels of concern regarding data privacy and security. Interestingly, those with chronic disease were more willing to use digital platforms for clinical care and share personal health information for not-for-profit research. Caregivers were most concerned about data breaches involving data from their children but also highlighted that digital platforms would allow for better coordination of care for their children. CONCLUSIONS: Our research confirms the willingness of caregivers and youth to use digital platforms for both clinical care delivery and research and suggests that the value of a digital platform may outweigh the risks of its use. Engagement of end users in co-designing such platforms has the potential to enhance digital trust. However, digital trust varies across sociodemographic groups; therefore, diverse end user engagement is necessary when designing digital applications.

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)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.434 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207