An Alternative to the Light Touch Digital Health Remote Study: The Stress and Recovery in Frontline COVID-19 Health Care Workers Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several app-based studies share similar characteristics of a light touch approach that recruit, enroll, and onboard via a smartphone app and attempt to minimize burden through low-friction active study tasks while emphasizing the collection of passive data with minimal human contact. However, engagement is a common challenge across these studies, reporting low retention and adherence. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe an alternative to a light touch digital health study that involved a participant-centric design including high friction app-based assessments, semicontinuous passive data from wearable sensors, and a digital engagement strategy centered on providing knowledge and support to participants. METHODS: The Stress and Recovery in Frontline COVID-19 Health Care Workers Study included US frontline health care workers followed between May and November 2020. The study comprised 3 main components: (1) active and passive assessments of stress and symptoms from a smartphone app, (2) objective measured assessments of acute stress from wearable sensors, and (3) a participant codriven engagement strategy that centered on providing knowledge and support to participants. The daily participant time commitment was an average of 10 to 15 minutes. Retention and adherence are described both quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: A total of 365 participants enrolled and started the study, and 81.0% (n=297) of them completed the study for a total study duration of 4 months. Average wearable sensor use was 90.6% days of total study duration. App-based daily, weekly, and every other week surveys were completed on average 69.18%, 68.37%, and 72.86% of the time, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study found evidence for the feasibility and acceptability of a participant-centric digital health study approach that involved building trust with participants and providing support through regular phone check-ins. In addition to high retention and adherence, the collection of large volumes of objective measured data alongside contextual self-reported subjective data was able to be collected, which is often missing from light touch digital health studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04713111; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04713111.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".