A Novel User Utility Score for Diabetes Management Using Tailored Mobile Coaching: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Mobile health applications have been developed to support diabetes self-management, but their effectiveness could depend on patient engagement. Therefore, patient engagement must be examined through multifactorial tailored behavioral interventions from an individual perspective. Objective This study aims to evaluate the usefulness of a novel user utility score (UUS) as a tool to measure patient engagement by using a mobile health application for diabetes management. Methods We conducted a subanalysis of results from a 12-month randomized controlled trial of a tailored mobile coaching (TMC) system among insurance policyholders with type 2 diabetes. UUS was calculated as the sum of the scores for 4 major core components (range 0-8): frequency of self-monitoring blood glucose testing, dietary and exercise records, and message reading rate. We explored the association between UUS for the first 3 months and glycemic control over 12 months. In addition, we investigated the relationship of UUS with blood pressure, lipid profile, and self-report scales assessing diabetes self-management. Results We divided 72 participants into 2 groups based on UUS for the first 3 months: UUS:0-4 (n=38) and UUS:5-8 (n=34). There was a significant between-group difference in glycated hemoglobin test (HbA1c) levels for the 12-months study period (P=.011). The HbA1c decrement at 12 months in the UUS:5-8 group was greater than that of the UUS:0-4 group [–0.92 (SD 1.24%) vs –0.33 (SD 0.80%); P=.049]. After adjusting for confounding factors, UUS was significantly associated with changes in HbA1c at 3, 6, and 12 months; the regression coefficients were –0.113 (SD 0.040; P=.006), –0.143 (SD 0.045; P=.002), and –0.136 (SD 0.052; P=.011), respectively. Change differences in other health outcomes between the 2 groups were not observed throughout a 12-month follow-up. Conclusions UUS as a measure of patient engagement was associated with changes in HbA1c over the study period of the TMC system and could be used to predict improved glycemic control in diabetes self-management through mobile health interventions. Trial Registration ClinicalTrial.gov NCT03033407; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03033407
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 | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".