Remotely Conducted App-Based Intervention for Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Risk Awareness and Prevention: Single-Group Feasibility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus are two of the most prevalent chronic conditions worldwide. An unhealthy lifestyle greatly contributes to someone's risk of developing these conditions. Mobile health is an emerging technology that can help deliver health promotion interventions to the population, for example, in the form of health apps. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of an app-based intervention for cardiovascular and diabetes risk awareness and prevention by measuring nonusage, dropout, adherence to app use, and usability of the app over 3 months. METHODS: Participants were eligible if they were aged 45 years or older, resided in Australia, were free of cardiovascular disease and diabetes, were fluent in English, and owned a smartphone. In the beginning, participants received an email with instructions on how to install the app and a user guide. After 3 months, they received an email with an invitation to an end-of-study survey. The survey included questions about general smartphone use and the user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale. We analyzed app-generated and survey data by using descriptive and inferential statistics as well as thematic analysis for open-text comments. RESULTS: Recruitment took place between September and October 2021. Of the 46 participants who consented to the study, 20 (44%) never used the app and 15 (33%) dropped out. The median age of the app users at baseline was 62 (IQR 56-67) years. Adherence to app use, that is, using the app at least once a week over 3 months, was 17% (8/46) of the total sample and 31% (8/26) of all app users. The mean app quality rating on the user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale was 3.5 (SD 0.6) of 5 points. The app scored the highest for the information section and the lowest for the engagement section of the scale. CONCLUSIONS: Nonusage and dropouts were too high, and the adherence was too low to consider the intervention in its current form feasible. Potential barriers that we identified include the research team not actively engaging with participants early in the study to verify that all participants could install the app, the intervention did not involve direct contact with health care professionals, and the app did not have enough interactive features.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".