A Community-Engaged Approach to Developing a Mobile Cancer Prevention App: The mCPA Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid growth of mobile technologies has resulted in a proliferation of lifestyle-oriented mobile phone apps. However, most do not have a theoretical framework and few have been developed using a community-based participatory research approach. A community academic team will develop a theory-based, culturally tailored, mobile-enabled, Web-based app-the Mobile Cancer Prevention App (mCPA)-to promote adherence to dietary and physical activity guidelines. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop mCPA content with input from breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Members of SISTAAH (Survivors Involving Supporters to Take Action in Advancing Health) Talk (N=12), treated for Stages I-IIIc breast cancer for less than 1 year, 75 years of age or younger, and English-speaking and writing, will be recruited to participate in the study. To develop the app content, breast cancer survivors will engage with researchers in videotaped and audiotaped sessions, including (1) didactic instructions with goals for, benefits of, and strategies to enhance dietary intake and physical activity, (2) guided discussions for setting individualized goals, monitoring progress, and providing or receiving feedback, (3) experiential nutrition education through cooking demonstrations, and (4) interactive physical activity focused on walking, yoga, and strength training. Qualitative (focus group discussions and key informant interviews) and quantitative (sensory evaluation) methods will be used to evaluate the participatory process and outcomes. RESULTS: Investigators and participants anticipate development of an acceptable (frequency and duration of usage) feasible (structure, ease of use, features), and accessible mobile app available for intervention testing in early 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the availability of research funding, mCPA testing, which will be initiated in Miami, will be extended to Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".