MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409918411 · doi:10.2196/60173

Exploring the Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing a Smartphone App for Physicians to Improve the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarctions: Multicenter, Mixed Methods, Observational Study

2025· article· en· W4409918411 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Katelyn J Cullen, Hassan Mir, Madhu K. Natarajan, Marija Corovic, Karen Mosleh, Jacob Crawshaw, Mathew Mercuri, Hassan Masoom, JD Schwalm

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioOttawa HospitalWilliam Osler Health SystemPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyPreprintMedicinemHealthTelemedicineMedical emergencyNursingPsychological interventionComputer scienceHealth careInternal medicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Timely and appropriate care is critical for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Effective communication and prompt sharing of test results, particularly electrocardiograms (ECGs), between the referring emergency medicine (EM) physician or emergency medical service (EMS) paramedic and the interventional cardiologist (IC) are essential. This exchange relies on fax or SMS text messages. The SmartAMI-ACS (Strategic Management of Acute Reperfusion and Therapies in Acute Myocardial Infarction) App was developed to streamline communication. It is user friendly and privacy compliant, and enables rapid, secure ECG sharing to support faster, informed clinical decision-making. Objective: This paper details the results of targeted preimplementation surveys to establish barriers and enablers of using a smartphone app to transmit ECG images among ICs, EM physicians, and EMS paramedics to help tailor implementation interventions. Methods: To assess the proposed acceptability and uptake of the app, preimplementation surveys were disseminated to ICs, EM physicians, and EMS paramedics in one region of Ontario, Canada. Questions were generated based on selected components of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, results from a pilot study carried out at a regional hospital where the SmartAMI-ACS app was previously implemented, and predicted barriers based on expert guidance. The preimplementation surveys consisted of 7-point Likert scale questions (1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly agree) and open-ended questions. Open-ended data were extracted verbatim and analyzed using an inductive qualitative approach, with transcripts coded into descriptive qualitative codes and then collapsed into themes. Results: Survey uptake was acceptable, with 9 of the invited 10 ICs, 51 of the invited 223 EM physicians, and 93 of the invited 1138 EMS paramedics responding. All groups recognized that current practices for sharing ECGs allowed room for improvement, accepting that fax can be inconvenient and SMS text messages may not be secure. When asked whether there was a need for a smartphone app to transmit ECGs, ICs (mean 6.67, SD 0.5), EM physicians (mean 5.57, SD 1.3), and EMS paramedics (mean 5.79, SD 1.45) consistently agreed. Commonly reported barriers were concerns over technological challenges, privacy issues, and cell phone reception strength. Through the identification of the barriers in each stakeholder group, implementation strategies were developed that facilitated the scale-up of this system-change intervention. Conclusions: Results from the 3 web-based preimplementation surveys to identify key barriers and enablers to the implementation of the app helped inform the selection of tailored implementation strategies to support the rollout of the app across the health region. The surveys identified key barriers around technology, privacy, and access to required Wi-Fi that needed to be addressed during app implementation to facilitate uptake and use. Results from the surveys, and ongoing evaluation of effectiveness, are informing the expansion of the app intervention to local ambulance services and other health regions.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→