Engagement With a Remote Symptom-Tracking Platform Among Participants With Major Depressive Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric remote measurement technologies (RMTs), which comprise smartphones and wearable devices, have the potential to revolutionize understanding of the etiology and trajectory of major depressive disorder (MDD). Engagement with RMTs in MDD research is of the utmost importance for the validity of predictive analytical methods and long-term use and can be conceptualized as both objective engagement (data availability) and subjective engagement (system usability and experiential factors). Positioning the design of user interfaces within the theoretical framework of the Behavior Change Wheel can help maximize effectiveness. In-app components containing information from credible sources, visual feedback, and access to support provide an opportunity to promote engagement with RMTs while minimizing team resources. Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in quantifying the effects of in-app components on engagement with RMTs in patients with MDD. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate whether a multiparametric RMT system with theoretically informed notifications, visual progress tracking, and access to research team contact details could promote engagement with remote symptom tracking over and above the system as usual. We hypothesized that participants using the adapted app (intervention group) would have higher engagement in symptom monitoring, as measured by objective and subjective engagement. METHODS: A 2-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial (participant-blinded) with 1:1 randomization was conducted with 100 participants with MDD over 12 weeks. Participants in both arms used the RADAR-base system, comprising a smartphone app for weekly symptom assessments and a wearable Fitbit device for continuous passive tracking. Participants in the intervention arm (n=50, 50%) also had access to additional in-app components. The primary outcome was objective engagement, measured as the percentage of weekly questionnaires completed during follow-up. The secondary outcomes measured subjective engagement (system engagement, system usability, and emotional self-awareness). RESULTS: The levels of completion of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8) were similar between the control (67/97, 69%) and intervention (66/97, 68%) arms (P value for the difference between the arms=.83, 95% CI -9.32 to 11.65). The intervention group participants reported slightly higher user engagement (1.93, 95% CI -1.91 to 5.78), emotional self-awareness (1.13, 95% CI -2.93 to 5.19), and system usability (2.29, 95% CI -5.93 to 10.52) scores than the control group participants at follow-up; however, all CIs were wide and included 0. Process evaluation suggested that participants saw the in-app components as helpful in increasing task completion. CONCLUSIONS: The adapted system did not increase objective or subjective engagement in remote symptom tracking in our research cohort. This study provides an important foundation for understanding engagement with RMTs for research and the methodologies by which this work can be replicated in both community and clinical settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04972474; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04972474. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/32653.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».