MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4306790256 · doi:10.2196/35926

A Smartphone Physical Activity App for Patients in Alcohol Treatment: Single-Arm Feasibility Trial

2022· article· en· W4306790256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ana M. Abrantes, Lidia Z. Meshesha, Claire E. Blevins, Cynthia L. Battle, Clifford Lindsay, Eliza Marsh, Sage R. Feltus, Matthew P. Buman, Emmanuel Agu, Michael D. Stein

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsMoodCravingAlcohol use disorderPsychological interventionmHealthQuality of life (healthcare)AnxietyMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)PsychiatryAlcoholClinical psychologyPhysical therapyAddiction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a significant public health concern worldwide. Alcohol consumption is a leading cause of death in the United States and has a significant negative impact on individuals and society. Relapse following treatment is common, and adjunct intervention approaches to improve alcohol outcomes during early recovery continue to be critical. Interventions focused on increasing physical activity (PA) may improve AUD treatment outcomes. Given the ubiquity of smartphones and activity trackers, integrating this technology into a mobile app may be a feasible, acceptable, and scalable approach for increasing PA in individuals with AUD. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to test the Fit&Sober app developed for patients with AUD. The goals of the app were to facilitate self-monitoring of PA engagement and daily mood and alcohol cravings, increase awareness of immediate benefits of PA on mood and cravings, encourage setting and adjusting PA goals, provide resources and increase knowledge for increasing PA, and serve as a resource for alcohol relapse prevention strategies. METHODS: To preliminarily test the Fit&Sober app, we conducted an open pilot trial of patients with AUD in early recovery (N=22; 13/22, 59% women; mean age 43.6, SD 11.6 years). At the time of hospital admission, participants drank 72% of the days in the last 3 months, averaging 9 drinks per drinking day. The extent to which the Fit&Sober app was feasible and acceptable among patients with AUD during early recovery was examined. Changes in alcohol consumption, PA, anxiety, depression, alcohol craving, and quality of life were also examined after 12 weeks of app use. RESULTS: Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the Fit&Sober app. App metadata suggested that participants were still using the app approximately 2.5 days per week by the end of the intervention. Pre-post analyses revealed small-to-moderate effects on increase in PA, from a mean of 5784 (SD 2511) steps per day at baseline to 7236 (SD 3130) steps per day at 12 weeks (Cohen d=0.35). Moderate-to-large effects were observed for increases in percentage of abstinent days (Cohen d=2.17) and quality of life (Cohen d=0.58) as well as decreases in anxiety (Cohen d=-0.71) and depression symptoms (Cohen d=-0.58). CONCLUSIONS: The Fit&Sober app is an acceptable and feasible approach for increasing PA in patients with AUD during early recovery. A future randomized controlled trial is necessary to determine the efficacy of the Fit&Sober app for long-term maintenance of PA, ancillary mental health, and alcohol outcomes. If the efficacy of the Fit&Sober app could be established, patients with AUD would have a valuable adjunct to traditional alcohol treatment that can be delivered in any setting and at any time, thereby improving the overall health and well-being of this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02958280; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02958280.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→