MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413137999 · doi:10.2196/59276

Development of a Knowledge Base for an Integrated Older Adult Care Model (SMART System) Based on an Intervention Mapping Framework: Mixed Methods Study

2025· article· en· W4413137999 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rongrong Guo, Fangyu Yang, Huan Fan, Yanyan Xiao, Ying Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Knowledge baseBase (topology)Computer scienceKnowledge managementProcess managementMedicineEngineeringNursingArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although mobile health apps integrated with Internet of Things-enabled devices are increasingly used to satisfy the growing needs for home-based older adult care resulting from rapid population aging, their effectiveness is constrained by 3 key challenges: a focus on specific functions rather than on holistic and integrated support, absence of a solid theoretical framework for development, and a lack of personalized, real-time feedback to address diverse care needs. To overcome these limitations, we developed a knowledge-based clinical decision support system using mobile health technology-an intelligent and integrated older adults care model (SMART system). Objective: This study aims to systematically outline the development process and outcomes of a knowledge base and trigger rules for the SMART system. Methods: Our study adopted a user-centered approach guided by the nursing process and intervention mapping (IM) framework. We first identified older adult care needs through semistructured, in-depth interviews. Guided by the nursing process and informed by guidance from the World Health Organization's Integrated Care for Older People and World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health, along with the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association-I nursing diagnosis, we then determined care problems along with their underlying causes and risk factors and diagnostic criteria. Building on these findings, we applied the first 3 steps of the intervention mapping framework to formulate corresponding long-term and short-term care objectives, select appropriate evidence-based interventions, and match practical implementation approaches, which were grounded in rigorous evidence derived from systematic literature reviews, clinical guidelines, and expert insights. We also developed a set of trigger rules to link abnormalities in older adults with corresponding care problems and interventions in the SMART knowledge base. Results: The semistructured in-depth interviews identified 5 types of care needs-daily life care, health care, external support, social participation, and self-development-which formed the foundation of the SMART knowledge base. Based on this, we identified 138 care problems, each with associated causes and risk factors and diagnostic criteria. The objective matrix comprised 138 long-term and 195 short-term care objectives. Guided by 15 expert-defined selection criteria, we then selected 450 evidence-based interventions, each paired with at least 1 feasible and practical implementation approach. Additionally, we developed diagnostic rules to match the assessment data with relevant care problems and their causes and risk factors and intervention trigger rules to formulate personalized interventions based on individual characteristics, ensuring tailored care aligned with specific care objectives. Conclusions: This study outlines the development process and outcomes of the SMART knowledge base and trigger rules. The study methodology offers theoretical support for developing knowledge bases and trigger rules of similar clinical decision support systems for home-based older adult care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR NursingSame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207