Engagement Strategies for Self-Monitoring Symptoms of Bipolar Disorder With Mobile and Wearable Technology: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monitoring signs and symptoms in bipolar disorder (BP) is typically based on regular assessments from patient-clinician interactions. Mobile and wearable technology promises to make monitoring symptoms in BP easier, but little is known about how best to engage individuals with BP in monitoring symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide the rationale and protocol for a randomized controlled trial that investigates engagement strategies for monitoring symptoms of BP, including the strategies of using activity trackers compared with self-reports and reviewing recorded symptoms weekly with an interviewer. METHODS: A total of 50 individuals with BP will be recruited from the Prechter Longitudinal Study of Bipolar Disorder at the University of Michigan to participate in a 6-week study. Participants will monitor their symptoms through an activity tracker (Fitbit Alta HR) and a mobile phone app designed for this study. In addition to monitoring symptoms, participants have a 50-50 chance of being assigned to an arm that reviews self-reports and activity information weekly. Statistical tests will be performed to test hypotheses that participants adhere to activity tracking significantly more than self-reporting, prefer activity tracking significantly more than self-reporting, and better adhere to both activity tracking and self-reporting when reviewing collected information weekly. RESULTS: Recruitment commenced in November 2017. The first group of participants began the study in January 2018. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to establish strategies to engage individuals with BP in monitoring their symptoms with mobile and wearable technology. Better engagement strategies are expected to aid current efforts in bipolar research and clinical care, from the development of new mobile phone apps to providing the right intervention to the right individual at the right moment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03358238; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03358238 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yebuNfz5). REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/9899.
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 | 0.045 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.014 |
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".