Assessing Breast Cancer Survivors’ Perceptions of Using Voice-Activated Technology to Address Insomnia: Feasibility Study Featuring Focus Groups and In-Depth Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer survivors (BCSs) are a growing population with a higher prevalence of insomnia than women of the same age without a history of cancer. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) has been shown to be effective in this population, but it is not widely available to those who need it. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to better understand BCSs' experiences with insomnia and to explore the feasibility and acceptability of delivering CBT-I using a virtual assistant (Amazon Alexa). METHODS: We first conducted a formative phase with 2 focus groups and 3 in-depth interviews to understand BCSs' perceptions of insomnia as well as their interest in and comfort with using a virtual assistant to learn about CBT-I. We then developed a prototype incorporating participant preferences and CBT-I components and demonstrated it in group and individual settings to BCSs to evaluate acceptability, interest, perceived feasibility, educational potential, and usability of the prototype. We also collected open-ended feedback on the content and used frequencies to describe the quantitative data. RESULTS: We recruited 11 BCSs with insomnia in the formative phase and 14 BCSs in the prototype demonstration. In formative work, anxiety, fear, and hot flashes were identified as causes of insomnia. After prototype demonstration, nearly 79% (11/14) of participants reported an interest in and perceived feasibility of using the virtual assistant to record sleep patterns. Approximately two-thirds of the participants thought lifestyle modification (9/14, 64%) and sleep restriction (9/14, 64%) would be feasible and were interested in this feature of the program (10/14, 71% and 9/14, 64%, respectively). Relaxation exercises were rated as interesting and feasible using the virtual assistant by 71% (10/14) of the participants. Usability was rated as better than average, and all women reported that they would recommend the program to friends and family. CONCLUSIONS: This virtual assistant prototype delivering CBT-I components by using a smart speaker was rated as feasible and acceptable, suggesting that this prototype should be fully developed and tested for efficacy in the BCS population. If efficacy is shown in this population, the prototype should also be adapted for other high-risk populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".