Specialized Smartphone Intervention Apps: Review of 2014 to 2018 NIH Funded Grants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The widespread adoption of smartphones provides researchers with expanded opportunities for developing, testing and implementing interventions. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds competitive, investigator-initiated grant applications. Funded grants represent the state of the science and therefore are expected to anticipate the progression of research in the near future. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to provide an analysis of the kinds of smartphone-based intervention apps funded in NIH research grants during the five-year period between 2014 and 2018. METHODS: We queried NIH Reporter to identify candidate funded grants that addressed mHealth and the use of smartphones. From 1524 potential grants, we identified 397 that met the requisites of including an intervention app. Each grant's abstract was analyzed to understand the focus of intervention. The year of funding, type of activity (eg, R01, R34, and so on) and funding were noted. RESULTS: We identified 13 categories of strategies employed in funded smartphone intervention apps. Most grants included either one (35.0%) or two (39.0%) intervention approaches. These included artificial intelligence (57 apps), bionic adaptation (33 apps), cognitive and behavioral therapies (68 apps), contingency management (24 apps), education and information (85 apps), enhanced motivation (50 apps), facilitating, reminding and referring (60 apps), gaming and gamification (52 apps), mindfulness training (18 apps), monitoring and feedback (192 apps), norm setting (7 apps), skills training (85 apps) and social support and social networking (59 apps). The most frequently observed grant types included Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants (40.8%) and Research Project Grants (R01s) (26.2%). The number of grants funded increased through the five-year period from 60 in 2014 to 112 in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone intervention apps are increasingly competitive for NIH funding. They reflect a wide diversity of approaches that have significant potential for use in applied settings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".