MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206383285 · doi:10.2196/30606

Digital Prompts to Increase Engagement With the Headspace App and for Stress Regulation Among Parents: Feasibility Study

2021· article· en· W4206383285 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa K. Militello, Michael Sobolev, Fabian Okeke, Daniel A. Adler, Inbal Nahum‐Shani

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsMindfulnessmHealthMental healthContext (archaeology)Experience sampling methodDigital healthIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyApplied psychologyPsychological interventionSocial psychologyNursingPsychiatryHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Given the interrelated health of children and parents, strategies to promote stress regulation are critically important in the family context. However, the uptake of preventive mental health is limited among parents owing to competing family demands. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to determine whether it is feasible and acceptable to randomize digital prompts designed to engage parents in real-time brief mindfulness activities guided by a commercially available app. METHODS: We conducted a 30-day pilot microrandomized trial among a sample of parents who used Android smartphones. Each day during a parent-specified time frame, participants had a 50% probability of receiving a prompt with a message encouraging them to engage in a mindfulness activity using a commercial app, Headspace. In the 24 hours following randomization, ecological momentary assessments and passively collected smartphone data were used to assess proximal engagement (yes or no) with the app and any mindfulness activity (with or without the app). These data were combined with baseline and exit surveys to determine feasibility and acceptability. RESULTS: Over 4 months, 83 interested parents were screened, 48 were eligible, 16 were enrolled, and 10 were successfully onboarded. Reasons for nonparticipation included technology barriers, privacy concerns, time constraints, or change of mind. In total, 80% (8/10) of parents who onboarded successfully completed all aspects of the intervention. While it is feasible to randomize prompt delivery, only 60% (6/10) of parents reported that the timing of prompts was helpful despite having control over the delivery window. Across the study period, we observed higher self-reported engagement with Headspace on days with prompts (31/62, 50% of days), as opposed to days without prompts (33/103, 32% of days). This pattern was consistent for most participants in this study (7/8, 87%). The time spent using the app on days with prompts (mean 566, SD 378 seconds) was descriptively higher than on days without prompts (mean 225, SD 276 seconds). App usage was highest during the first week and declined over each of the remaining 3 weeks. However, self-reported engagement in mindfulness activities without the app increased over time. Self-reported engagement with any mindfulness activity was similar on days with (40/62, 65% of days) and without (65/103, 63% of days) prompts. Participants found the Headspace app helpful (10/10, 100%) and would recommend the program to others (9/10, 90%). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that parents are receptive to using mindfulness apps to support stress management, and prompts are likely to increase engagement with the app. However, we identified several implementation challenges in the current trial, specifically a need to optimize prompt timing and frequency as a strategy to engage users in preventive digital mental health.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations40
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207