Collecting Real-Time Patient-Reported Outcome Data During Latent Labor: Feasibility Study of the MyCap Mobile App in Prospective Person-Centered Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The growing emphasis on patient experience in medical research has increased the focus on patient-reported outcomes and symptom measures. However, patient-reported outcomes data are subject to recall bias, limiting reliability. Patient-reported data are most valid when reported by patients in real time; however, this type of data is difficult to collect from patients experiencing acute health events such as labor. Mobile technologies such as the MyCap app, integrated with the REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) platform, have emerged as tools for collecting patient-generated health data in real time offering potential improvements in data quality and relevance. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using MyCap for real-time, patient-reported data collection during latent labor. The objective was to assess the usability of MyCap in characterizing patient experiences during this acute health event and to identify any challenges in data collection that could inform future research. METHODS: In this descriptive cohort study, we quantified and characterized data collected prospectively through MyCap and the extent to which participants engaged with the app as a research tool for collecting patient-reported data in real time. Longitudinal quantitative and qualitative surveys were sent to (N=18) enrolled patients with term pregnancies planning vaginal birth at Oregon Health Sciences University. Participants were trained in app use prenatally. Then participants were invited to initiate the research survey on their personal smartphone via MyCap when they experienced labor symptoms and were asked to return to MyCap every 3 hours to provide additional longitudinal symptom data. RESULTS: Out of 18 enrolled participants, 17 completed the study. During latent labor, 13 (76.5%) participants (all those who labored at home and two-thirds of those who were induced) recorded at least 1 symptom report during latent labor. A total of 191 quantitative symptom reports (mean of 10 per participant) were recorded. The most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue, contractions, and pain, with nausea and diarrhea being less frequent but more intense. Four participants recorded qualitative data during labor and 14 responded to qualitative prompts in the postpartum period. The study demonstrated that MyCap could effectively capture real-time patient-reported data during latent labor, although qualitative data collection during active symptoms was less robust. CONCLUSIONS: MyCap is a feasible tool for collecting prospective data on patient-reported symptoms during latent labor. Participants engaged actively with quantitative symptom reporting, though qualitative data collection was more challenging. The use of MyCap appears to reduce recall bias and facilitate more accurate data collection for patient-reported symptoms during acute health events outside of health care settings. Future research should explore strategies to enhance qualitative data collection and assess the tool's usability across more diverse populations and disease states.
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 | 0.037 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".