Crowdsourcing Remote Co-design Towards Improving the Validity and Reliability of mHealth Application Development – A Case Study on Sleep Solved: A mHealth App Designed Virtually with Teens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Co-design has become a fundamental pillar of formative digital health research. Typically, this approach involves in–person workshops that involve a rich but limited amount of data. Virtually crowdsourcing co-design, however, provides the promise of rapid and vastly increased data. This is a novel, exploratory approach in mHealth design that may appease common health research concerns surrounding reliability and validity, whilst providing swifter feedback to meet product development timelines.OBJECTIVES: The objective of this exploratory single case study was to explore the virtual, crowdsourced, co-design of Sleep Solved, an educational mHealth sleep app designed with teens. In doing so, we wished to learn which virtual methods were used to engage teens in the co-design and to explore how these virtual co-design methods can be adapted for large-scale ideation and testing.METHODS: We conducted an enquiry-based iterative case study utilising the Bayazit 3-stage model. 85 teens participated over 11 months. Data was thematically analysed over several design iterations.RESULTS: Rapid virtual feedback allowed for quick pivots in a short time frame. Four stages of feedback from teens led to iterative changes to scientific information contextualisation and user experience, from lo-fidelity mock-ups through to a coded app beta.CONCLUSION: The co-design of Sleep Solved exemplified the potential of virtually crowdsourcing teens in mHealth. Key to this evolution will be the ability to leverage big data utilising AI and machine learning approaches to data collation and synthesization, such that meaningful and contextual findings can be applied in line with software development timelines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".