Within- and Between-Individual Compliance in Mobile Health: Joint Modeling Approach to Nonrandom Missingness in an Intensive Longitudinal Observational Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Missing data are inevitable in mobile health (mHealth) and ubiquitous health (uHealth) research and are often driven by distinct within- and between-person factors that influence compliance. Understanding these distinct mechanisms underlying nonresponse can inform strategies to improve compliance and strengthen the validity of inferences about health behaviors. However, current missing data handling techniques rarely disentangle these different sources of nonresponse, especially when data are missing not at random. OBJECTIVE: We demonstrate the usability of joint modeling in the mHealth context, showing how simultaneously accounting for the dynamics of health behavior and both within- and between-person missingness mechanisms can affect the validity of health behavior inferences. We also illustrate how joint modeling can inform distinct sources of (possibly nonignorable) missingness in studies using ecological momentary assessment and wearable devices. We provide a practical workflow for applying joint models to empirical data. METHODS: We applied joint modeling on empirical data comprising 1 year of daily smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment data (affect and energetic feeling) and smartwatch-tracked physical activity (PA). The approach combined (1) a multilevel vector autoregressive model for examining the reciprocal influences between daily affect and PA, and (2) a multilevel probit model for missingness. Unlike conventional 2-stage imputation methods-which first impute missing data before fitting the main model-joint modeling handles missingness during model fitting without explicit imputation. Sensitivity analyses compared results from the proposed method to other missing data approaches that do not explicitly model missingness. A simulation study designed to mirror the temporally clustered (eg, consecutive days of missing data) and person-specific missingness patterns of the empirical data validated the feasibility of the proposed approach. RESULTS: Sensitivity analysis indicated relative robustness of the autoregressive effects across missing data handling approaches, whereas cross-regressive effects could be detected only under the joint modeling but not with methods that did not simultaneously model missingness mechanisms. Specifically, under joint modeling approaches, participants had higher levels of PA on days following a previous day with higher self-report energy levels (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.012-0.049). Furthermore, the missing data model revealed both missing not at random and missing at random mechanisms. For example, lower PA predicted higher missingness in PA at the within-person level (95% CrI -1.528 to -1.441). Being employed was associated with higher missingness in device-tracked PA at the between-person level (95% CrI 0.148-0.574). Finally, simulation showed that joint modeling could improve the accuracy of estimates and identify nonignorable missingness. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend joint modeling with multilevel decomposition for addressing nonignorable missingness in mHealth/uHealth studies collecting intensive longitudinal data. We also suggest using a missing data model to explore the missingness mechanism and inform data collection strategies.
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 | 0,164 | 0,229 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».