A Patient-Oriented Implementation Strategy for a Perioperative mHealth Intervention: Feasibility Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Day surgery is being increasingly implemented across Europe, driven in part by capacity problems. Patients recovering at home could benefit from tools tailored to their new care setting to effectively manage their convalescence. The mHealth application ikHerstel is one such tool, but although it administers its functions in the home, its implementation hinges on health care professionals within the hospital. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a feasibility study of an additional patient-oriented implementation strategy for ikHerstel. This strategy aimed to empower patients to access and use ikHerstel independently, in contrast to implementation as usual, which hinges on the health care professional acting as gatekeeper. Our research question was "How well are patients able to use ikHerstel independently of their health care professional?" METHODS: We investigated the implementation strategy in terms of its recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received, and fidelity. Patients with a recent or prospective elective surgery were recruited using a wide array of materials to simulate patient-oriented dissemination of ikHerstel. Data were collected through web-based surveys. Descriptive analysis and open coding were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Recruitment yielded 213 registrations, with 55 patients ultimately included in the study. The sample was characterized by patients undergoing abdominal surgery, with high literacy and above average digital health literacy, and included an overrepresentation of women (48/55, 87%). The implementation strategy had a reach of 81% (63/78), with 87% (55/67) of patients creating a recovery plan. Patients were satisfied with their independent use of ikHerstel, rating it an average 7.0 (SD 1.9) of 10, and 54% (29/54) of patients explicitly reported no difficulties in using it. A major concern of the implementation strategy was conflicts in recommendations between ikHerstel and the health care professionals, as well as the resulting feelings of insecurity experienced by patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this small feasibility study, most patients were satisfied with the patient-oriented implementation strategy. However, the lack of involvement of health care professionals due to the strategy contributed to patient concerns regarding conflicting recommendations between ikHerstel and health care professionals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".