Engagement With a Remote Symptom-Tracking Platform Among Participants With Major Depressive Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric remote measurement technologies (RMTs), which comprise smartphones and wearable devices, have the potential to revolutionize understanding of the etiology and trajectory of major depressive disorder (MDD). Engagement with RMTs in MDD research is of the utmost importance for the validity of predictive analytical methods and long-term use and can be conceptualized as both objective engagement (data availability) and subjective engagement (system usability and experiential factors). Positioning the design of user interfaces within the theoretical framework of the Behavior Change Wheel can help maximize effectiveness. In-app components containing information from credible sources, visual feedback, and access to support provide an opportunity to promote engagement with RMTs while minimizing team resources. Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in quantifying the effects of in-app components on engagement with RMTs in patients with MDD. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate whether a multiparametric RMT system with theoretically informed notifications, visual progress tracking, and access to research team contact details could promote engagement with remote symptom tracking over and above the system as usual. We hypothesized that participants using the adapted app (intervention group) would have higher engagement in symptom monitoring, as measured by objective and subjective engagement. METHODS: A 2-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial (participant-blinded) with 1:1 randomization was conducted with 100 participants with MDD over 12 weeks. Participants in both arms used the RADAR-base system, comprising a smartphone app for weekly symptom assessments and a wearable Fitbit device for continuous passive tracking. Participants in the intervention arm (n=50, 50%) also had access to additional in-app components. The primary outcome was objective engagement, measured as the percentage of weekly questionnaires completed during follow-up. The secondary outcomes measured subjective engagement (system engagement, system usability, and emotional self-awareness). RESULTS: The levels of completion of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8) were similar between the control (67/97, 69%) and intervention (66/97, 68%) arms (P value for the difference between the arms=.83, 95% CI -9.32 to 11.65). The intervention group participants reported slightly higher user engagement (1.93, 95% CI -1.91 to 5.78), emotional self-awareness (1.13, 95% CI -2.93 to 5.19), and system usability (2.29, 95% CI -5.93 to 10.52) scores than the control group participants at follow-up; however, all CIs were wide and included 0. Process evaluation suggested that participants saw the in-app components as helpful in increasing task completion. CONCLUSIONS: The adapted system did not increase objective or subjective engagement in remote symptom tracking in our research cohort. This study provides an important foundation for understanding engagement with RMTs for research and the methodologies by which this work can be replicated in both community and clinical settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04972474; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04972474. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/32653.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".