Long-term participant retention and engagement patterns in an app and wearable-based multinational remote digital depression study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent growth in digital technologies has enabled the recruitment and monitoring of large and diverse populations in remote health studies. However, the generalizability of inference drawn from remotely collected health data could be severely impacted by uneven participant engagement and attrition over the course of the study. We report findings on long-term participant retention and engagement patterns in a large multinational observational digital study for depression containing active (surveys) and passive sensor data collected via Android smartphones, and Fitbit devices from 614 participants for up to 2 years. Majority of participants (67.6%) continued to remain engaged in the study after 43 weeks. Unsupervised clustering of participants' study apps and Fitbit usage data showed 3 distinct engagement subgroups for each data stream. We found: (i) the least engaged group had the highest depression severity (4 PHQ8 points higher) across all data streams; (ii) the least engaged group (completed 4 bi-weekly surveys) took significantly longer to respond to survey notifications (3.8 h more) and were 5 years younger compared to the most engaged group (completed 20 bi-weekly surveys); and (iii) a considerable proportion (44.6%) of the participants who stopped completing surveys after 8 weeks continued to share passive Fitbit data for significantly longer (average 42 weeks). Additionally, multivariate survival models showed participants' age, ownership and brand of smartphones, and recruitment sites to be associated with retention in the study. Together these findings could inform the design of future digital health studies to enable equitable and balanced data collection from diverse populations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".