MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416430268 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0001085

Primary care physicians’ perspectives on digital health tools for chronic disease management: A rapid review

2025· article· en· W4416430268 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Digital Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisDigital healthQualitative researchPsychological interventionChronic diseaseInclusion (mineral)EmpowermentPrimary careDisease managementPatient Empowerment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic disease management is a burden for many patients. Digital health tools (DHTs) can leverage technology to rapidly develop and disseminate interventions to alleviate obstacles faced and promote self-care. Primary care physicians (PCPs) are most directly involved in the care of chronic disease patients; however, their perspective is often overlooked. To develop an effective DHT for chronic disease management, PCP attitudes are critical to ensure improved patient integration, adoption and care outcomes. The purpose of this rapid review is to explore and identify PCPs' perspectives and attitudes regarding DHTs for chronic disease management and generate major themes from our findings using key literature. The themes will be used to guide DHT creators, clinicians and policy makers on adoption and implementation considerations. We conducted a rapid review of primary qualitative research between 2000 and 2022. Two reviewers, independently, conducted study screening, selection, and data abstraction. The themes identified in the articles were extracted and presented narratively. The data was analyzed using NVIVO12 software. Braun and Clarke's deductive thematic analysis was used, and the themes identified were extracted and presented narratively. Nine qualitative research studies met the inclusion criteria. Themes were classified into two major categories: physician-patient relationship and physician-technology relationship. Within these, seven subcategories were identified: (1) Increased Physician Workload, (2) Data Capture & Data Quality, (3) Evidence-Based Care, (4) Education and Training, (5) Liability, (6) Patient Interactions, and (7) Patient Empowerment and Suitability. DHT creators/endorsers need to consider how DHTs affect the patient-physician relationship and the physician-technology relationship as this affects how PCPs perceive DHTs. PCPs' perspectives must be taken into consideration to promote self-care for patients living with chronic diseases.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.358 · 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