MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312094253 · doi:10.2196/40166

A Mobile Phone Text Messaging Intervention to Manage Fatigue for People With Multiple Sclerosis, Spinal Cord Injury, and Stroke: Development and Usability Testing

2022· article· en· W4312094253 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kerri A. Morgan, Alex Wong, Kim Walker, Rachel Heeb Desai, Tina M Knepper, Pamela Newland

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Clinical and Translational SciencesFoundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital
KeywordsUsabilityPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)MedicineMobile phoneSelf-managementmHealthBehavior change methodsPsychologyNursingComputer scienceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fatigue significantly affects daily functioning in persons with disabilities. Fatigue management can be challenging, and the information provided during routine physician visits to manage fatigue can be overwhelming. One way to address fatigue is to increase knowledge, skills, and confidence for self-management (ie, patient activation). Self-management programs have shown promising effects in targeting fatigue in persons with disabilities. However, satisfaction with self-management programs is low for persons with disabilities, and tailoring interventions to personalized needs has been recommended. SMS text messaging is increasingly being used to implement health behavior change interventions in a person's natural environment. Little has been done to link mobile health approaches with patient activation and self-management to address fatigue in persons with disabilities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and test a mobile phone-based fatigue self-management SMS text messaging intervention targeting patient activation in 3 groups of persons with disabilities: persons with multiple sclerosis, persons who had a stroke, and persons with a spinal cord injury. METHODS: We used evidence-based resources and input from a consumer advisory board (CAB; composed of 2 participants from each of the 3 disability groups) and a neurologist to develop the intervention. The study was conducted using a 4-step process: development of the initial SMS text messaging library and categorization of the content into 9 content areas, review and modification of the SMS text messages by the neurologist and CAB, integration of the content library into a digital platform, and utility testing by CAB members. RESULTS: A total of 6 CAB participants rated SMS text messages covering 9 domain areas of fatigue self-management with good clarity (mean ratings=3.5-5.0 out of 5) and relevance (mean ratings=3.2-5.0 out of 5). Overall, SMS text messaging content was reported by CAB participants as helpful, clear, and well suited for a mobile health intervention. The CAB reached consensus on the time of day that SMS text messages should be sent (morning) and their frequency (once per day). This feedback led the research team to narrow down the program to deliver 48 SMS text messages, 1 per day, Monday through Thursday only, a total of 4 SMS text messages per week, over a 12-week period. The final set of SMS text messages was programmed into a digital platform with a predefined delivery schedule. The usability of the intervention was high, with 55 (83%) out of 66 responses endorsing the highest rating. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a step-by-step process for developing a fatigue self-management SMS text messaging intervention for persons with disabilities. For this population, whose access to health services is often limited, this intervention provides an alternative delivery model to increase access to fatigue information and deliver content that aligns with the person's needs.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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