MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4387883155 · doi:10.2196/51334

mHealth Intervention to Promote Physical Activity Among Employees Using a Deep Learning Model for Passive Monitoring of Depression and Anxiety: Single-Arm Feasibility Trial

2023· article· en· W4387883155 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kazuhiro Watanabe, Shoichi Okusa, Mitsuhiro Sato, Hideki Miura, Masahiro Morimoto, Akizumi Tsutsumi

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueDigital Mental Health Interventions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMeiji Yasuda Life Foundation of Health and Welfare
Mots-clésmHealthAnxietyMental healthDepression (economics)DistressPsychological interventionPopulationMedicineDASSClinical psychologyPsychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical activity effectively prevents depression and anxiety. Although mobile health (mHealth) technologies offer promising results in promoting physical activity and improving mental health, conflicting evidence exists on their effectiveness, and employees face barriers to using mHealth services. To address these problems, we recently developed a smartphone app named ASHARE to prevent depression and anxiety in the working population; it uses a deep learning model for passive monitoring of depression and anxiety from information about physical activity. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to preliminarily investigate (1) the effectiveness of the developed app in improving physical activity and reducing depression and anxiety and (2) the app's implementation outcomes (ie, its acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, satisfaction, and potential harm). METHODS: We conducted a single-arm interventional study. From March to April 2023, employees aged ≥18 years who were not absent were recruited. The participants were asked to install and use the app for 1 month. The ideal usage of the app was for the participants to take about 5 minutes every day to open the app, check the physical activity patterns and results of an estimated score of psychological distress, and increase their physical activity. Self-reported physical activity (using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire, version 2) and psychological distress (using the 6-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale) were measured at baseline and after 1 month. The duration of physical activity was also recorded digitally. Paired t tests (two-tailed) and chi-square tests were performed to evaluate changes in these variables. Implementation Outcome Scales for Digital Mental Health were also measured for acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, satisfaction, and harm. These average scores were assessed by comparing them with those reported in previous studies. RESULTS: This study included 24 employees. On average, the app was used for 12.54 days (44.8% of this study's period). After using the app, no significant change was observed in physical activity (-12.59 metabolic equivalent hours per week, P=.31) or psychological distress (-0.43 metabolic equivalent hours per week, P=.93). However, the number of participants with severe psychological distress decreased significantly (P=.01). The digitally recorded duration of physical activity increased during the intervention period (+0.60 minutes per day, P=.08). The scores for acceptability, appropriateness, and satisfaction were lower than those in previous mHealth studies, whereas those for feasibility and harm were better. CONCLUSIONS: The ASHARE app was insufficient in promoting physical activity or improving psychological distress. At this stage, the app has many issues that are to be addressed in terms of both implementation and effectiveness. The main reason for this low effectiveness might be the poor evaluation of the implementation outcomes by app users. Improving acceptability, appropriateness, and satisfaction are identified as key issues to be addressed in future implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000050430; https://tinyurl.com/mrx5ntcmrecptno=R000057438.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,889
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,617

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,263
Tête enseignante GPT0,553
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations14
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Formative ResearchMême sujetDigital Mental Health InterventionsTravaux en français237 207