THE STATE OF CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE (COPD) APPS: IDENTIFYING IDEAL DESIGNS AND FEATURES TO SUPPORT PATIENTS’ SELF-MANAGEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Mobile health applications (mHealth apps) may support people’s chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) self-management. Current research has demonstrated the promising effects of mHealth apps for people with COPD but there is still limited information on these apps’ characteristics and qualities, especially those in the public domain. Therefore, there is the need to use a standardized evaluation framework to: 1) describe characteristics and qualities of COPD apps from past studies; 2) characterize the features and qualities of public COPD apps; and 3) determine the appropriateness of public COPD apps from the perspective of clinicians and patients living with COPD. Methods: The mHealth Index and Navigation Database (MIND) framework, an objective evaluation tool was applied across studies. Project 1: A systematic review was conducted, including randomized controlled trials investigating interactive mHealth apps for people living with chronic lung diseases (CLD). Project 2: An evaluation study of the public marketplace (Android and Apple app stores) was conducted. Free mHealth apps created specifically for COPD self-management were included. Project 3: Reviewed COPD apps were presented to stakeholders in an infographic format. A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) was used to collect feedback from stakeholders on the state of public COPD apps. Results: Many of the COPD apps trialed in past studies have inconsistent reports of their features and qualities, with many publicly unavailable. Most public COPD apps lacked clinical evidence to support their use and have questionable qualities. Stakeholders agreed that public COPD apps were mostly inappropriate but did not dismiss the need to discuss their potential in COPD care plans. Significance: This thesis project advocates for the partnership with multiple heath disciplines and patient-participants for app evaluations to gain stronger understanding of their potential. Future opportunities may include exploring other apps for lung diseases to promote stakeholder engagement throughout the process.
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 | 0.080 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".