MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210831346 · doi:10.2196/31894

Testing Digital Methods of Patient-Reported Outcomes Data Collection: Prospective Cluster Randomized Trial to Test SMS Text Messaging and Mobile Surveys

2022· article· en· W4210831346 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anish K. Agarwal, Zarina S. Ali, Frances S. Shofer, Ruiying Xiong, Jessica Hemmons, Evan Spencer, Dina Abdel-Rahman, Brian J. Sennett, M. Kit Delgado

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMedical prescriptionFamily medicineMedical emergencyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health care delivery continues to evolve, with an effort being made to create patient-centered care models using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data. Collecting PROs has remained challenging and an expanding landscape of digital health offers a variety of methods to engage patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to prospectively investigate two common methods of remote PRO data collection. The study sought to compare response and engagement rates for bidirectional SMS text messaging and mobile surveys following orthopedic surgery. METHODS: The study was a prospective, block randomized trial of adults undergoing elective orthopedic procedures over 6 weeks. The primary objective was to determine if the method of digital patient engagement would impact response and completion rates. The primary outcome was response rate and total completion of PRO questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 127 participants were block randomized into receiving a mobile survey (n=63) delivered as a hyperlink or responding to the same questions through an automated bidirectional SMS text messaging system (n=64). Gender, age, number of comorbidities, and opioid prescriptions were similar across messaging arms. Patients receiving the mobile survey were more likely to have had a knee-related surgery (n=50, 83.3% vs n=40, 62.5%; P=.02) but less likely to have had an invasive procedure (n=26, 41.3% vs n=39, 60.9%; P=.03). Overall engagement over the immediate postoperative period was similar. Prolonged engagement for patients taking opioids past postoperative day 4 was higher in the mobile survey arm at day 7 (18/19, 94.7% vs 9/16, 56.3%). Patients with more invasive procedures showed a trend toward being responsive at day 4 as compared to not responding (n=41, 59.4% vs n=24, 41.4%; P=.05). CONCLUSIONS: As mobile patient engagement becomes more common in health care, testing the various options to engage patients to gather data is crucial to inform future care and research. We found that bidirectional SMS text messaging and mobile surveys were comparable in response and engagement rates; however, mobile surveys may trend toward higher response rates over longer periods of time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03532256; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03532256.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.380 · 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.

Study designRandomized trial
DomainMethods
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→