Barriers to and Facilitators of Using Remote Measurement Technology in the Long-Term Monitoring of Individuals With ADHD: Interview Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Remote measurement technology (RMT) has the potential to address current research and clinical challenges of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and its co-occurring mental health problems. Despite research using RMT already being successfully applied to other populations, adherence and attrition are potential obstacles when applying RMT to a disorder such as ADHD. Hypothetical views and attitudes toward using RMT in a population with ADHD have previously been explored; however, to our knowledge, there is no previous research that has used qualitative methods to understand the barriers to and facilitators of using RMT in individuals with ADHD following participation in a remote monitoring period. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the barriers to and facilitators of using RMT in individuals with ADHD compared with a group of people who did not have a diagnosis of ADHD. We also aimed to explore participants' views on using RMT for 1 or 2 years in future studies. METHODS: In total, 20 individuals with ADHD and 20 individuals without ADHD were followed up for 10 weeks using RMT that involved active (questionnaires and cognitive tasks) and passive (smartphone sensors and wearable devices) monitoring; 10 adolescents and adults with ADHD and 12 individuals in a comparison group completed semistructured qualitative interviews at the end of the study period. The interviews focused on potential barriers to and facilitators of using RMT in adults with ADHD. A framework methodology was used to explore the data qualitatively. RESULTS: Barriers to and facilitators of using RMT were categorized as health-related, user-related, and technology-related factors across both participant groups. When comparing themes that emerged across the participant groups, both individuals with and without ADHD experienced similar barriers and facilitators in using RMT. The participants agreed that RMT can provide useful objective data. However, slight differences between the participant groups were identified as barriers to RMT across all major themes. Individuals with ADHD described the impact that their ADHD symptoms had on participating (health-related theme), commented on the perceived cost of completing the cognitive tasks (user-related theme), and described more technical challenges (technology-related theme) than individuals without ADHD. Hypothetical views on future studies using RMT in individuals with ADHD for 1 or 2 years were positive. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with ADHD agreed that RMT, which uses repeated measurements with ongoing active and passive monitoring, can provide useful objective data. Although themes overlapped with previous research on barriers to and facilitators of engagement with RMT (eg, depression and epilepsy) and with a comparison group, there are unique considerations for people with ADHD, for example, understanding the impact that ADHD symptoms may have on engaging with RMT. Researchers need to continue working with people with ADHD to develop future RMT studies for longer periods.
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 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 ».