Experience Sampling and Programmed Intervention Method and System for Planning, Authoring, and Deploying Mobile Health Interventions: Design and Case Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health professionals initiating mobile health (mHealth) interventions may choose to adapt apps designed for other activities (eg, peer-to-peer communication) or to employ purpose-built apps specialized in the required intervention, or to exploit apps based on methods such as the experience sampling method (ESM). An alternative approach for professionals would be to create their own apps. While ESM-based methods offer important guidance, current systems do not expose their design at a level that promotes replicating, specializing, or extending their contributions. Thus, a twofold solution is required: a method that directs specialists in planning intervention programs themselves, and a model that guides specialists in adopting existing solutions and advises software developers on building new ones. OBJECTIVE: The main objectives of this study are to design the Experience Sampling and Programmed Intervention Method (ESPIM), formulated toward supporting specialists in deploying mHealth interventions, and the ESPIM model, which guides health specialists in adopting existing solutions and advises software developers on how to build new ones. Another goal is to conceive and implement a software platform allowing specialists to be users who actually plan, create, and deploy interventions (ESPIM system). METHODS: We conducted the design and evaluation of the ESPIM method and model alongside a software system comprising integrated web and mobile apps. A participatory design approach with stakeholders included early software prototype, predesign interviews with 12 health specialists, iterative design sustained by the software as an instance of the method's conceptual model, support to 8 real case studies, and postdesign interviews. RESULTS: The ESPIM comprises (1) a list of requirements for mHealth experience sampling and intervention-based methods and systems, (2) a 4-dimension planning framework, (3) a 7-step-based process, and (4) an ontology-based conceptual model. The ESPIM system encompasses web and mobile apps. Eight long-term case studies, involving professionals in psychology, gerontology, computer science, speech therapy, and occupational therapy, show that the method allowed specialists to be actual users who plan, create, and deploy interventions via the associated system. Specialists' target users were parents of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, older persons, graduate and undergraduate students, children (age 8-12), and caregivers of older persons. The specialists reported being able to create and conduct their own studies without modifying their original design. A qualitative evaluation of the ontology-based conceptual model showed its compliance to the functional requirements elicited. CONCLUSIONS: The ESPIM method succeeds in supporting specialists in planning, authoring, and deploying mobile-based intervention programs when employed via a software system designed and implemented according to its conceptual model. The ESPIM ontology-based conceptual model exposes the design of systems involving active or passive sampling interventions. Such exposure supports the evaluation, implementation, adaptation, or extension of new or existing systems.
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 | 0.060 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".