Response Rate Patterns in Adolescents With Concussion Using Mobile Health and Remote Patient Monitoring: Observational Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: A concussion is a common adolescent injury that can result in a constellation of symptoms, negatively affecting academic performance, neurobiological development, and quality of life. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies, such as apps for patients to report symptoms or wearables to measure physiological metrics like heart rate, have been shown to be promising in health maintenance. However, there is limited evidence about mHealth engagement in adolescents with a concussion during their recovery course. Objective: This study aims to determine the response rate and response rate patterns in concussed adolescents reporting their daily symptoms through mHealth technology. It will also examine the effect of time-, demographic-, and injury-related characteristics on response rate patterns. Methods: Participants aged between 11-18 years (median days since injury at enrollment: 11 days) were recruited from the concussion program of a tertiary care academic medical center and a suburban school's athletic teams. They were asked to report their daily symptoms using a mobile app. Participants were prompted to complete the Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory (PCSI) 3 times (ie, morning, afternoon, and evening) per day for 4 weeks following enrollment. The primary outcome was the response rate pattern over time (by day since initial app use and the day since injury). Time-, demographic-, and injury-related differences in reporting behaviors were compared using Mann Whitney U tests. Results: A total of 56 participants were enrolled (mean age 15.3, SD 1.9 years; n=32, 57% female). The median response rate across all days of app use in the evening was 37.0% (IQR 27.2%-46.4%), which was significantly higher than the morning (21.2%, IQR 15.6%-30.5%) or afternoon (26.4%, IQR 21.1%-31.5%; P<.001). The median daily response was significantly different by sex (female: 53.8%, IQR 46.2%-64.2% vs male: 42.0%, IQR 28.6%-51.1%; P=.003), days since injury to app use (participants starting to use the app >7 days since injury: 54.1%, IQR 47.4%-62.2% vs starting to use the app ≤7 days since injury: 38.0%, IQR 26.0%-53.3%; P=.002), and concussion history (participants with a history of at least one prior concussion: 57.4%, IQR 44.5%-70.5% vs participants without concussion history: 42.3%, IQR 36.8%-53.5%; P=.03). There were no significant differences by age. Differences by injury mechanism (sports- and recreation-related injury: 39.6%, IQR 36.1%-50.4% vs non-sports- or recreation-related injury: 30.6%, IQR 20.0%-42.9%; P=.04) and initial symptom burden (PCSI scores greater than the median score of 47: 40.9%, IQR 35.2%-53.8% vs PCSI scores less than or equal to the median score: 31.9%, IQR 24.6%-40.6%; P=.04) were evident in the evening response rates; however, daily rates were not statistically different. Conclusions: Evening may be the optimal time to prompt for daily concussion symptom assessment among concussed adolescents compared with morning or afternoon. Multiple demographic- and injury-related characteristics were associated with higher daily response rates, including for female participants, those with more than 1 week from injury to beginning mHealth monitoring, and those with a history of at least one previous concussion. Future studies may consider incentive strategies or adaptive digital concussion assessments to increase response rates in populations with low engagement.
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 | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».