MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945420460 · doi:10.2196/13049

A Smartphone Game to Prevent HIV Among Young Africans (Tumaini): Assessing Intervention and Study Acceptability Among Adolescents and Their Parents in a Randomized Controlled Trial

2019· article· en· W2945420460 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gaëlle Sabben, Victor Mudhune, Ken Ondenge, Isdorah Odero, Richard Ndivo, Victor Akelo, Kate Winskell

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of HealthCenter for AIDS Research, University of WashingtonEmory UniversityNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesAndrew W. Mellon Foundation
KeywordsPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialFocus groupUsabilityPopulationCondomIntervention (counseling)OperationalizationMedicinePsychologyApplied psychologyFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)NursingComputer scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Young people aged 15 to 24 years account for one-third of new adult HIV infections. Controlling the HIV epidemic requires effective interventions targeted toward young people and their needs. Smartphone games offer a promising avenue for reaching this population with evidence-based HIV prevention interventions. It is crucial to the effectiveness of these interventions that they be acceptable and intrinsically motivating to adolescents as well as acceptable to their parents. OBJECTIVE: Tumaini is a narrative-based smartphone game designed to help prevent HIV among young Africans aged 11 to 14 years by delaying first sex and increasing condom use at first sex. Following a 16-day feasibility study of Tumaini, we assessed the acceptability (1) of the intervention, where acceptability was operationalized as appeal, relevance, value, usability, and understandability, and (2) of this study and a planned future randomized controlled efficacy trial. METHODS: During the randomized feasibility study (n=60) of Tumaini in western Kenya in spring 2017, 30 participants used the intervention on a study-provided smartphone. The app automatically logged participant interaction with the game in time-stamped log files. All 30 participants completed an Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interview-based game experience survey, and 27 took part in 4 focus group discussions (FGDs) about the game's appeal, relevance, value, usability, and understandability. Their parents (n=22) also participated in 4 FGDs about the acceptability of the intervention, of this study, and of a planned efficacy trial. Survey data were analyzed using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc); FGD transcripts were coded and analyzed in MAXQDA 12 (Verbi GmbH); and gameplay log files were analyzed using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Adolescent participants' survey responses indicated that Tumaini scored well with players on all indicators of acceptability (appeal, relevance, value, usability, and understandability). Focus group analyses aligned with these findings and emphasized a high degree of player engagement with the game, which was supported by log file analysis. Adolescent participants were eager for additional content, and parents were receptive to a longer study involving biomarkers, based on their positive experiences with this study. There is scope to improve communication with parents about their role in the intervention. As the game was tested in beta version, there is also scope to fine-tune some of the game mechanics to increase usability. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the strong acceptability of an interactive smartphone-based game both to adolescents and their parents in western Kenya and that of the study methods used to pilot-test the intervention. It also suggests that longitudinal efficacy studies of this type of intervention, including those using biomarkers, have the potential to be acceptable among parents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03054051; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03054051 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/70U2gCNtW).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.391 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207