MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415908685 · doi:10.2196/77844

Co-Design of a Digital Health Platform for Chronic Disease Management in Rural Settings Using a Person-Centered, Collaborative-Care Model: Protocol for a 3-Phase Mixed Methods Study

2025· article· en· W4415908685 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A E Young, Britt Klein, Priscilla R. Prestes, Colette Browning, Leo R. Bell, Fadi J. Charchar, Chris Hall, Matthew Toms, Nguyễn Văn Huy, Quanda Zhang, Lisa Fiddes, Tanya E. Davison, Marissa Dickins, Tim Harrison, Shane Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital healthProtocol (science)Chronic diseasemHealtheHealthTelemedicineHealth careDisease managementChronic care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases represent a significant global burden, accounting for 85% of the total disease burden in Australia. This burden is particularly pronounced in rural areas, where chronic disease rates are higher, and access to health care services is more limited. Digital technology has the potential to address these disparities by overcoming challenges such as workforce shortages and geographic isolation. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to develop a digital health platform (DHP) to support the monitoring and management of chronic disease in collaboration with rural and regional stakeholders, including researchers, health care providers, and patients. The platform is being designed to be flexible, enabling applications across a range of chronic health conditions relevant to rural contexts. METHODS: Guided by implementation science methodologies, we are adopting an evidence-based approach to developing a DHP for chronic disease management. Informed by co-design frameworks and best-practice guidelines, our development plan comprises three key phases: (1) stakeholder needs analysis, (2) co-design and platform development, and (3) postdesign evaluation and testing. The Federation University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC Ref: 2023/169) granted ethics approval for this study. RESULTS: Data collection is underway. The phase 1 review has been completed, and we have 84 survey responses. Phase 2 has commenced, with 9 workshops and 2 interviews conducted to date. Phase 3 will not commence until phase 2 has been completed. At this stage, project completion is anticipated by late 2026. CONCLUSIONS: Findings will inform the desirability, feasibility, and acceptability of co-designed DHPs for chronic disease management in rural Australia. Further, the study will contribute to the evidence base on collaborative, context-sensitive digital health innovation for resource-limited populations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/77844.

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)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.011

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 head0.473
GPT teacher head0.688
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreProtocol

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 Research Protocols→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→