Qualitative Interview with Older Adults and Caregivers on their Perspectives with Self-Management and Remote Vital Sign Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research underscores the role of self-management capabilities as a strategy for enhancing the well-being of older adults by mitigating potential health risks and functional decline. Self-management tools like remote vital sign monitoring serve as critical indicators for detecting adverse health outcomes. Thus, the study aims to understand prior experiences of older adults and caregivers in self-management, along with soliciting their perspective on the technical advantages and barriers of using technology in medicine, citing their experience with remote vital sign monitoring as an example. Methods: Through semi-structured qualitative interviews, 32 participants were interviewed virtually about their personal experience with prior remote vital sign monitoring. Eligibility included older adults and/or caregivers of older adults. Participants who were unable to read or understand English were excluded, unless sufficient support was provided to navigate the study procedures. Results: The full interview transcriptions were captured under the following five major themes: health-care experience, personal perception of technology in medicine, impact of remote vital sign monitoring, contactless monitoring system considerations, and acceptance and collaboration in remote vital sign measurement. Conclusion: Based on participants' prior experience using remote vital sign monitoring, compatibility, data security and privacy, and patient education were identified as important considerations when developing monitoring systems for older adults and caregivers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".