Decision Trade-Offs in Ecological Momentary Assessments and Digital Wearables Uptake: Protocol for a Discrete Choice Experiment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) and digital wearables (DW) are commonly used remote monitoring technologies that capture real-time data in people's natural environments. Real-time data are core to personalized medical care and intensively adaptive health interventions. The utility of such personalized care is contingent on user uptake and continued use of EMA and DW. Consequently, it is critical to understand user preferences that may increase the uptake of EMA and DW. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to quantify users' preferences of EMA and DW, examine variations in users' preferences across demographic and behavioral subgroups, and assess the association between users' preferences and intentions to use EMA and DW. METHODS: We will administer 2 discrete choice experiments (DCEs) paired with self-report surveys on the internet to a total of 3260 US adults through Qualtrics. The first DCE will assess participants' EMA preferences using a choice-based conjoint design that will ask participants to compare the relative importance of prompt frequency, number of questions per prompt, prompt type, health topic, and assessment duration. The second DCE will measure participants' DW preferences using a maximum difference scaling design that will quantify the relative importance of device characteristics, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating technical, health care, and market factors. Hierarchical Bayesian multinomial logistic regression models will be used to generate subject-specific preference utilities. Preference utilities will be compared across demographic (ie, sex, age, race, and ethnicity) and behavioral (ie, substance use, physical activity, dietary behavior, and sleep duration) subgroups. Regression models will determine whether specific utilities are associated with attitudes toward or intentions to use EMA and DW. Mixture models will determine the associations of attitudes toward and intentions to use EMA and DW with latent profiles of user preferences. RESULTS: The institutional review board approved the study on December 19, 2022. Data collection started on January 20, 2023, and concluded on May 4, 2023. Data analysis is currently underway. CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide evidence on users' preferences of EMA and DW features that can improve initial uptake and potentially continued use of these remote monitoring tools. The sample size and composition allow for subgroup analysis by demographics and health behaviors and will provide evidence on associations between users' preferences and intentions to uptake EMA and DW. Limitations include the cross-sectional nature of the study, which limits our ability to measure direct behavior. Rather, we capture behavioral intentions for EMA and DW uptake. The nonprobability sample limits the generalizability of the results and introduces self-selection bias related to the demographic and behavioral characteristics of participants who belong to web-based survey panels. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/47567.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».