MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408180548 · doi:10.2196/71439

Development of a Patient-Centered Symptom-Reporting Application in Pharmacy Settings Using a Hierarchical Patient-Friendly Symptom List: Developmental and Usability Study

2025· article· en· W4408180548 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hayato Kizaki, Satoko Hori

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityPharmacyUser FriendlyPatient dataMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceFamily medicineHuman–computer interactionDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Effective symptom identification, a key responsibility for community pharmacists, requires patients to describe their symptoms accurately and comprehensively. However, current practices in pharmacies may be insufficient in capturing patient-reported symptoms comprehensively, potentially affecting the quality of pharmaceutical care and patient safety. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to construct a new, hierarchical symptom list derived from the Patient-Friendly Term List of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) and to develop and evaluate a mobile app incorporating this list for facilitating symptom reporting by patients in pharmacy settings. The study also aimed to assess the usability and acceptance of this app among potential users. METHODS: Subjective symptom-related terms were extracted from the Patient-Friendly Term List version 23.0 of the MedDRA. These terms were systematically consolidated and organized into a hierarchical, user-friendly symptom list. A mobile app incorporating this list was developed for pharmacy settings, featuring a symptom selection interface and a free-text input field for additional symptoms. The app included an instructional video explaining the importance of symptom reporting and guidance on navigation. Usability tests and semistructured interviews were conducted with participants aged >20 years. Interview transcripts were analyzed using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model to evaluate factors influencing the acceptance of technology. RESULTS: From the initial 1440 terms in the Patient-Friendly Term List, 795 relevant terms were selected and organized into 40 site-specific subcategories, which were then grouped into broader site categories (mental, head, trunk, upper limb, lower limb, physical condition, and others). These terms were further consolidated into 211 patient-friendly symptom terms, forming a hierarchical symptom list. The app's interface design limited options to 10 items per screen to assist with decision-making. A total of 5 adults participated in the usability test. Participants found the interface intuitive and easy to use, requiring minimal effort, and provided positive feedback regarding the potential utility of the app in pharmacy settings. The UTAUT analysis identified several facilitating factors, including ease of use and the potential for enhanced pharmacist-patient communication. However, concerns were raised about usability for older adults and the need for simplified technical terminology. CONCLUSIONS: The user-friendly app with a hierarchically structured symptom list and complementary free-text entry has potential benefits for improving the accuracy and efficiency of symptom reporting in pharmacy settings. The positive user acceptance and identified areas for improvement provide a foundation for further development and implementation of this technology to enhance communication between patients and pharmacists. Future improvements should focus on addressing usability for older adults and simplifying technical terminology.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207