Mobile Technology Interventions for Asthma Self-Management: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile technology interventions (MTI) are becoming increasingly popular in the management of chronic health behaviors. Most MTI allow individuals to monitor medication use, record symptoms, or store and activate disease-management action plans. Therefore, MTI may have the potential to improve low adherence to medication and action plans for individuals with asthma, which is associated with poor clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of MTI on clinical outcomes as well as adherence in individuals with asthma. As the use of evidence-based behavior change techniques (BCT) has been shown to improve intervention effects, we also conducted exploratory analyses to determine the role of BCT and engagement with MTI as moderators of MTI efficacy. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials up until June 2016. Random effect models were used to assess the effect of MTI on clinical outcomes as well as adherence to preventer medication or symptom monitoring. Mixed effects models assessed whether the features of the MTI (ie, use of BCT) and how often a person engaged with MTI moderated the effects of MTI. RESULTS: The literature search located 11 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, with 9 providing satisfactory data for meta-analysis. Compared with standard treatment, MTI had moderate to large effect sizes (Hedges g) on medication adherence and clinical outcomes. MTI had no additional effects on adherence or clinical outcomes when compared with paper-based monitoring. No moderator effects were found, and the number of studies was small. A narrative review of the two studies, which are not included in the meta-analysis, found similar results. CONCLUSIONS: This review indicated the efficacy of MTI for self-management in individuals with asthma and also indicated that MTI appears to be as efficacious as paper-based monitoring. This review also suggested a need for robust studies to examine the effects of BCT use and engagement on MTI efficacy to inform the evidence base for MTI in individuals with asthma.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".