MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404125659 · doi:10.2196/59897

Exploring the Needs of People With Chronic Low Back Pain and Health Care Professionals for mHealth Devices to Support Self-Managed Physical Activity and Pain: User-Centered Design Approach

2024· article· en· W4404125659 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mathilde Berger, Anne Deblock-Bellamy, Laurence Chèze, Thomas Robert, Julie Desrosiers, Guillaume Christe, Anne Martine Bertrand

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthChronic painPsychological interventionSelf-managementVariety (cybernetics)MedicineHealth carePhysical activityPain managementPhysical therapyPsychologyNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major economic and social problem worldwide. Despite the variety of recommended treatments, long-term self-management of this condition is complex and requires the development of innovative interventions. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies hold great promise for the management of chronic pain, particularly to support physical activity. However, their implementation is challenged by a lack of user compliance and limited engagement, which may be due to insufficient consideration of the needs of potential users during development. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the needs of people with CLBP and health care professionals regarding mHealth technologies to support self-managed physical activity, and to delineate design recommendations based on identified needs. METHODS: A participatory study was conducted using a 3-phase, user-centered design approach: needs investigation with a group of experts in a workshop (phase 1), needs exploration with end users in focus groups (phase 2), and validation of needs using Delphi questionnaires followed by the development of a set of recommendations (phase 3). RESULTS: A total of 121 people with CLBP, expert patients, health care professionals, rehabilitation researchers, and biomechanical engineers participated in this study. The results indicated how technology could help people with CLBP overcome their difficulties with managing physical activity. Specific needs were formulated concerning device objectives, expected strategies, functionalities, technical features, conditions of use, and potential facilitators and barriers to use. These needs were validated by consensus from the potential end users and translated into design recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides design recommendations for the development of an mHealth device specifically adapted for people with CLBP.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207