Uncovering Specific Navigation Patterns by Assessing User Engagement of People With Dementia and Family Caregivers With an Advance Care Planning Website: Quantitative Analysis of Web Log Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Web-based tools have gained popularity to inform and empower individuals in advance care planning. We have developed an interactive website tailored to the unique needs of people with dementia and their families to support advance care planning. This website aims to break away from the rigid pathways shown in other tools that support advance care planning, in which advance care planning is shown as a linear process from information to reflection, communication, and documentation. Objective: This study aimed to assess the website's usage by people with dementia and their family caregivers, identify distinct user engagement patterns, and visualize how users navigated the website. Methods: We analyzed the website's log data obtained from an 8-week evaluation study of the site. Interactions with the website were collected in log data files and included visited web pages or clicked-on hyperlinks. Distinct user engagement patterns were identified using K-means clustering process mining, a technique that extracts insights from log data to model and visualize workflows, was applied to visualize user pathways through the website. Results: A total of 52 participants, 21 individuals with dementia and their family caregivers as dyads and 10 family caregivers were included in the study. Throughout the 8-week study, users spent an average of 35.3 (SD 82.9) minutes over 5.5 (SD 3.4) unique days on the website. Family caregivers mostly used the website (alone or with a person with dementia) throughout the 8-week study. Only 3 people with dementia used it on their own. In total, 3 distinct engagement patterns emerged: low, moderate, and high. Low-engagement participants spent less time on the website during the 8 weeks, following a linear path from information to communication to documentation. Moderate- and high-engagement users showed more dynamic patterns, frequently navigating between information pages and communication tools to facilitate exploration of aspects related to advance care planning. Conclusions: The diverse engagement patterns underscore the need for personalized support in advance care planning and challenge the conventional linear advance care planning representations found in other web-based tools.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".