MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2978680618 · doi:10.2196/15733

Engagement With a Digital Platform for Multimodal Cognitive Assessment and Multidomain Intervention in a Japanese Population: Pilot, Quasi-Experimental, Longitudinal Study

2019· article· en· W2978680618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jordan M. Glenn, Erica N. Madero, Michelle Gray, Nami Fuseya, Mari Ikeda, Tomoo Kawamura, Yoshiko Arita, Nick Bott

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth coachingmHealthDashMedicinePopulationPhysical therapyPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)CoachingActivity trackerGerontologyUsabilityCognitionPsychologyPhysical activityNursingPsychiatryEnvironmental healthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As the global prevalence of dementia continues to rise, multidomain lifestyle interventions that address modifiable risk factors associated with pathological cognitive decline are increasing. Although some digital options have been developed to increase the reach and scalability of these programs, because of cultural differences, the efficacy of the programs in one population cannot easily be generalized to populations in other countries. OBJECTIVE: This investigation aimed to examine the usability and engagement of a digitally delivered multidomain cognitive lifestyle intervention developed in the United States for a Japanese population. METHODS: This feasibility investigation utilized a quasi-experimental, single-arm, nonrandomized, longitudinal design where participants engaged in the behavioral intervention on a smartphone. Of the 559 participants that initially enrolled (age: mean 51 years, SD 7.5 years; 51.7% female [289/559]), 242 completed the final testing trial. Participants enrolled in a multidomain lifestyle program that consisted of (1) psychoeducational material, (2) physical activity tracker, (3) nutrition tracker, (4) audio-based meditations, and (5) health coaching. Engagement with the program was assessed through the total number of app sessions and the use of the exercise, diet, and meditation tracking features within the app. The total number of minutes exercised was collected through subjective user inputs, and nutrition was quantified by the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet adherence score. RESULTS: Significant relationships existed between overall nutrition score and frequency of nutrition tracking (r=0.18), frequency of physical activity tracking (r=0.19), and the total number of minutes exercised (r=0.22). Total minutes exercised was significantly correlated with total app sessions (r=0.57), frequency of physical activity tracking (r=0.85), frequency of nutrition tracking (r=0.64), number of times participants meditated (r=0.46), and total lessons read (r=0.36). The number of completed lessons was significantly related to frequency of physical activity tracking (r=0.40), frequency of nutrition tracking (r=0.43), the total number of times participants meditated (r=0.35), and total minutes exercised (r=0.33). Dividing the cohort into two groups based on lesson completion (<10 lessons completed vs ≥10 lessons completed), significant differences were observed between the total minutes exercised, frequency of physical activity tracking, frequency of nutrition tracking, and total number of times participants meditated (all P values <.01). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this cross-cultural feasibility study in Japanese users demonstrated that the various engagement metrics were significantly correlated, and greater engagement was related to improved nutrition scores and increased time exercising. In addition, the relationships between lesson completion and other engagement metrics suggest that there may be value in exploring mechanisms that enhance lesson completion. Future research should examine the program in randomized control trials to more rigorously evaluate program efficacy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→