MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409003146 · doi:10.2196/64607

Patients’ Expectations for App-Based Therapy in Knee Osteoarthritis: User-Centered Design Approach

2025· article· en· W4409003146 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pika Krištof Mirt, Karmen Erjavec, Sabina Krsnik, Petra Kotnik, Hussein Mohsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintOsteoarthritisMedicinePhysical therapyComputer scienceAlternative medicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) requires long-term treatment that faces significant barriers, including inadequate physiotherapy services, especially in Slovenia and comparable European countries. Mobile health apps offer a promising solution to improve accessibility and adherence to KOA treatment. objectives: This study aimed to identify expectations of patients with KOA for app-based therapy, determine the functional requirements, and assess the main barriers and benefits of using mobile apps for KOA management. It also examined these factors about demographic data (gender, age, and education level) and motivation to perform knee exercises. Methods: A mixed methods approach was used, integrating quantitative data from a structured questionnaire and qualitative data from in-depth interviews. The purposive sample comprised 82 patients with symptomatic KOA graded 1-3 on the Kellgren-Lawrence scale, excluding those with cognitive impairments, wheelchair dependency, significant comorbidities, or language barriers. Results: The analysis revealed that 53.7% (44/82) of patients preferred smartphones, while 40.2% (33/82) favored PCs for remote KOA management, citing accessibility and convenience. Exercise videos received the highest rating (µ=9.45), followed by goal setting and tracking (µ=8.95) and regular e-messages (µ=8.83). Telephone consultations with physiotherapists were also highly valued (µ=8.41). Significant differences were observed in the perceived importance of key disease information (F9=2.077; P=.04) and exercise videos (F9=2.788; P=.05) based on motivation levels but not by gender, age, or education. Perceptions of the appropriate duration of physical activity varied with motivation levels (F9=2.490; P=.02) but not with demographic factors. Men rated ease of use (4.93 vs 4.71; F1=3.961; P=.05) and the clarity of the exercise flow display higher than women. The most significant barrier was inaccurate disease information (µ=3.96), with notable differences across age groups. Younger participants (younger than 40 years) and those aged 51-60 years expressed concerns about time management and information accuracy. Patients highlighted the ability to rewatch exercises as a key app feature, while time efficiency and improved access to physiotherapists were highly valued for convenience. Enhanced communication and accurate information were essential for building trust and ensuring effective treatment. Conclusions: Mobile health apps for KOA management should be designed with a user-centered approach, prioritizing accessibility, motivation, and effective communication. Key functionalities include high-quality exercise videos, goal setting, symptom tracking, and regular electronic reminders. Mitigating user-reported barriers and integrating age-specific adaptations can enhance adherence and therapeutic outcomes. The findings highlight the potential of mobile health technologies to optimize KOA self-management and improve patient quality of life, particularly in health care systems with limited physiotherapy accessibility, such as those in Slovenia.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207