MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132960996

Using a healthbot to improve varenicline adherence: Insights from healthcare providers

2024· dissertation· W7132960996 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Mackenzie Vera Earle

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2024
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVareniclineFacilitatorSmoking cessationHealth careQualitative researchTracking (education)ConverseMedication adherence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Varenicline, a highly efficacious smoking cessation medication, has high non-adherence rates. Healthbots, apps that use artificial intelligence to converse with users and help manage health by tracking data, providing resources, and sending notifications, can provide tailored medication support and may improve medication adherence. This study aimed to understand, from the perspectives of healthcare providers, how a healthbot can improve varenicline adherence and what would influence them to recommend it.. We interviewed 19 providers across Ontario and analyzed qualitative data using the theoretical domains framework, a guide made of categories influencing behaviour change. A common facilitator for adherence was effective communication. A common barrier to adherence was side effects, which providers believed a healthbot could address by providing mitigation strategies. Providers mentioned they would not recommend a healthbot to patients with poor technological literacy but would if they receive positive feedback from others. This information will help develop and implement a healthbot for varenicline adherence.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.402 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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