Using Smart Displays to Implement an eHealth System for Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Smart displays and speakers offer voice interaction, which may be more accessible and appealing to older adults with chronic pain and other multimorbid conditions. Previous trials found stronger socioemotional benefits of ElderTree (vs control) among those with high primary care use and multiple chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to test whether older adults with chronic pain and multiple other chronic conditions use and benefit more from ElderTree, an eHealth intervention targeting pain and quality of life, when delivered on a smart display. METHODS: We recruited 269 participants from the University of Wisconsin-Madison health system and community organizations and randomly assigned 1:1:1 to (1) smart display with internet and ElderTree, plus usual care; (2) touchscreen laptop with internet and ElderTree, plus usual care; or (3) usual care alone. Participants were aged ≥60 years, had a chronic pain diagnosis or reported chronic pain, and at least 3 common chronic conditions. Primary outcomes were pain interference and psychosocial quality of life. Data sources were baseline, 4-month, and 8-month surveys and continuous ElderTree usage data. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the laptop versus smart display groups for pain interference (b=-0.11, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.85; P=.82) or psychosocial quality (b=-0.21, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.55; P=.56), nor between the combined laptop+smart display group versus control group for either outcome (pain interference: b=-0.41, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.41; P=.33; psychosocial quality of life: b=0.04, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.69; P=.90). Mediation was not tested because effects on primary outcomes were nonsignificant. Gender did not moderate the effect of laptop versus smart display groups in pain interference (b=-1.56, 95% CI -3.56 to 0.44; P=.13). Gender did moderate the effect of the combined laptop+smart display group versus control group (b=1.91, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.71; P=.04). Women showed a significant decrease in pain interference (b=-0.69, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.10; P=.02), whereas women in the control group showed no significant change (b=0.25, 95% CI -0.53 to 1.04; P=.53). Men in the combined group showed a nonsignificant decrease (b=-0.67, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.14; P=.10), whereas men in the control group showed a significant decrease (b=-1.61, 95% CI -2.88 to -0.35; P=.01). Participants assigned to the laptop versus smart display used ElderTree more frequently and had more favorable perceptions. Analyses of secondary and exploratory outcomes showed no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant differences between the combined ElderTree group and the control group for changes over time in any primary, secondary, or exploratory outcomes. Moderation analyses indicated that only gender moderated study arm effects, and only for the laptop+smart display versus control group on changes over time in the two primary outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04798196; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04798196. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/37522.
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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».