Workload, Usability, and Engagement with a Mobile App Supporting Video Observation of Methadone Take-Home Dosing: Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methadone, a cornerstone of opioid use disorder treatments for many decades, is an essential tool for combatting the opioid epidemic. However, requirements for observing methadone dosing in person through direct observed therapy (DOT) impose significant barriers for many patients. Digital technology can facilitate remote DOT, which could reduce barriers to methadone treatment. Currently, there are limited data on the usability of such technology among patients and counselors in methadone treatment settings. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the workload, usability, and engagement of a video-based DOT mobile app for patients with opioid use disorder receiving methadone treatment. The secondary objective was to assess the workload, usability, and engagement of the provider-facing app portal used by counselors. METHODS: Patients (n=12) and counselors (n=3) who previously tried video DOT for methadone through a smartphone app in an opioid treatment program participated in usability testing sessions. Participants completed essential tasks for video DOT, then provided ratings of workload (NASA Task Load Index), usability (modified System Usability Scale), and engagement (modified Engagement Scale) with the core features of the video DOT program. RESULTS: Patients and counselors reported low mental, physical, and temporal demands, successful performance, low effort, and low frustration associated with activities. Patients reported high usability (mean 85, SD 9.5) and engagement (mean 3.8, SD 1.1); counselors reported moderate usability (mean 43.3, SD 17.7) and engagement (mean 2.81, SD 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: A mobile health app that facilitates video-based DOT for methadone required a low workload for patients and counselors and was highly usable for patients in an opioid treatment program; however, there are opportunities to improve usability and engagement for the counselor-facing portal.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".