Feasibility and effect of adding a concurrent parental component to a school-based wellness program using two modes of mobile-based technology – mixed methods evaluation of RCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the feasibility and effect of two mobile modes (WhatsApp vs. a specially designed app) in their delivery of updates and assignments to parents. METHODS: Two three-armed, randomized, controlled feasibility studies were conducted. In each trial, four schools with a total of 418 students in grade 5th, mean age 10.1 years, were randomly allocated to the control arm, youth-only arm, or youth & parental component arm. Only the data of those that completed all three assessments (pre, post and 3 months post program) were analyzed: 133 in the first trial and 137 in the second. In the youth-only arm, students participated in an interactive age-tailored prevention program delivered in 10 weekly, 90-min sessions on self-care behaviors, media literacy, self-esteem, and positive body image. The control groups in both studies received three health- and nutrition-related sessions. In the parental arm, in addition to the 'Favoring-Myself-Young's ten sessions program, parents received updates and were requested to complete shared assignments with their children. In the first year, the assignments were sent via WhatsApp, and in the following year via "Favoring Myself" smartphone application. Facilitators were third year undergraduate students. They used a detailed semi-structured guide and received 4-weekly hours of didactic and group dynamic supervision. Mixed-methods assessments were performed using semi-structured interviews with ten parents and five school staff members each year, as well as a computerized self-report questionnaire. RESULTS: Feasibility of parent-adolescent shared assignments in both digital modes was lower than expected. The use of WhatsApp had higher feasibility and uptake than the use of the special application. The addition of the concurrent parental component via WhatsApp was associated with superior improvement in self-esteem and identification of advertisement strategies, compared with the youth-only program. However, adolescents in the youth-only program delivered via the smartphone application demonstrated superior improvement compared to those in the youth and parental component arm. CONCLUSIONS: Although the addition of the concurrent parenting component was praised by the actively participating parents, overall, under the chosen structure and population, it did not prove to add statistically significant value to the youth-only arm. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT03216018 (12.7.2017) and NCT03540277 (26.4.2018).
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 | 0.064 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".