MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404808998 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.6158

Feasibility and Acceptability of Using an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure via a Patient Portal in HIV care

2024· article· en· W4404808998 on OpenAlex
David Lessard, Kim Engler, MA Yuanchao, Ashkan Baradaran, Joseph Cox, Tarek Hijal, Cecilia T. Costiniuk, Alexandra de Pokomandy, Bertrand Lebouché

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient careHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Measure (data warehouse)Patient portalMedicinePatient-reported outcomeComputer scienceHealth careNursingFamily medicineData miningQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Context:</h3> Adherence to antiretrovirals (ART) is essential for people with HIV (PWH), but many face barriers. The I-Score is a new electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) of ART adherence barriers to be used in HIV care. <h3>Objective:</h3> To assess the feasibility and acceptability of administering the I-Score on a patient portal. <h3>Study Design Analysis:</h3> 6-month one-arm implementation pilot study. <h3>Setting:</h3> A large hospital-based clinic in Montreal, Canada. <h3>Population:</h3> PWH on ART, speaking French or English, owning a smartphone, willing to use the patient portal, reporting adherence issues. <h3>Intervention/Instrument:</h3> Patients visited their HIV physician at Time 1 (T1), 3 months (T2), and 6 months (T3). Before visits, they completed the I-Score. After visits, they completed a survey on sociodemographic characteristics (T1), and feasibility and acceptability of the I-Score. <h3>Outcome Measures:</h3> Feasibility was assessed with consent and retention rates; frequency of technological problems; and the 4-item Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM). Acceptability was evaluated with the adapted 6-item Acceptability E-scale for web-based PROMs (AES); and the 4-item Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM). We provide descriptive statistics. <h3>Results:</h3> Out of 34 PWH with identified adherence issues, 32/34 (94%) consented. Average age was 48 years (standard deviation (SD)=15), 12/32 (38%) were women, 19/32 (59%), migrants, and 10/32 (31%) lived below the poverty line. Overall, 26/32 (81%) completed the study, for a total of 78 visits; 4 were lost-to-follow-up and 2 withdrew due to difficulties with technology. During T1, T2, and T3, there were 12/26 (46%), 17/26 (65%), and 16/26 (62%) participants, respectively, reporting no technological problem. Problems met included needing to: remind patients to complete the I-Score before medical visit (15 visits); re-initialize passwords (8); resolve connectivity issues (2); and re-install the patient portal (2). Physicians could not access I-Score results at 4 visits; 10 visits were postponed due to difficulties. Average scores on FIM increased from 17/20 (T1;SD=5), to 18/20 (T2;2), to 19/20 (T3;2). Average AES increased from 24/30 (SD=5), to 26/30 (3), to 27/30 (3). Average AIM scores passed from 16/20 (5), to 18/20 (2), to 17/20 (3). <h3>Conclusions:</h3> The feasibility and acceptability of using a patient portal to administer the I-Score ePROM was high for vulnerable PWH, but use was challenged by patient literacy and technology.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsFrench-language works237,207