MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4365395733 · doi:10.2196/45752

Assessing a Sleep Interviewing Chatbot to Improve Subjective and Objective Sleep: Protocol for an Observational Feasibility Study

2023· article· en· W4365395733 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ting Su, Rafael A. Calvo, Mélanie Jouaiti, Sarah Daniels, Pippa Kirby, Derk‐Jan Dijk, Ciro della Monica, Ravi Vaidyanathan

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUK Dementia Research InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsObservational studyChatbotSleep (system call)Protocol (science)MedicineActigraphyPsychologyComputer scienceApplied psychologyPhysical therapyAlternative medicineWorld Wide WebPsychiatryInsomnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sleep disorders are common among the aging population and people with neurodegenerative diseases. Sleep disorders have a strong bidirectional relationship with neurodegenerative diseases, where they accelerate and worsen one another. Although one-to-one individual cognitive behavioral interventions (conducted in-person or on the internet) have shown promise for significant improvements in sleep efficiency among adults, many may experience difficulties accessing interventions with sleep specialists, psychiatrists, or psychologists. Therefore, delivering sleep intervention through an automated chatbot platform may be an effective strategy to increase the accessibility and reach of sleep disorder intervention among the aging population and people with neurodegenerative diseases. OBJECTIVE: This work aims to (1) determine the feasibility and usability of an automated chatbot (named MotivSleep) that conducts sleep interviews to encourage the aging population to report behaviors that may affect their sleep, followed by providing personalized recommendations for better sleep based on participants' self-reported behaviors; (2) assess the self-reported sleep assessment changes before, during, and after using our automated sleep disturbance intervention chatbot; (3) assess the changes in objective sleep assessment recorded by a sleep tracking device before, during, and after using the automated chatbot MotivSleep. METHODS: We will recruit 30 older adult participants from West London for this pilot study. Each participant will have a sleep analyzer installed under their mattress. This contactless sleep monitoring device passively records movements, heart rate, and breathing rate while participants are in bed. In addition, each participant will use our proposed chatbot MotivSleep, accessible on WhatsApp, to describe their sleep and behaviors related to their sleep and receive personalized recommendations for better sleep tailored to their specific reasons for disrupted sleep. We will analyze questionnaire responses before and after the study to assess their perception of our proposed chatbot; questionnaire responses before, during, and after the study to assess their subjective sleep quality changes; and sleep parameters recorded by the sleep analyzer throughout the study to assess their objective sleep quality changes. RESULTS: Recruitment will begin in May 2023 through UK Dementia Research Institute Care Research and Technology Centre organized community outreach. Data collection will run from May 2023 until December 2023. We hypothesize that participants will perceive our proposed chatbot as intelligent and trustworthy; we also hypothesize that our proposed chatbot can help improve participants' subjective and objective sleep assessment throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: The MotivSleep automated chatbot has the potential to provide additional care to older adults who wish to improve their sleep in more accessible and less costly ways than conventional face-to-face therapy. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/45752.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.007

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 head0.610
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.033 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→