Understanding Whether and How a Digital Health Intervention Improves Transition Care for Emerging Adults Living With Type 1 Diabetes: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Realist Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging adults living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) face a series of challenges with self-management and decreased health system engagement, leading to an increased risk of acute complications and hospital admissions. Effective and scalable strategies are needed to support this population to transfer seamlessly from pediatric to adult care with sufficient self-management capability. While digital health interventions for T1D self-management are a promising strategy, it remains unclear which elements work, how, and for which groups of individuals. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the design and implementation of a multicomponent SMS text message-based digital health intervention to support emerging adults living with T1D in real-world settings. The objectives are to identify the intervention components and associated mechanisms that support user engagement and T1D health care transition experiences and determine the individual characteristics that influence the implementation process. METHODS: We used a realist evaluation embedded alongside a randomized controlled trial, which uses a sequential mixed methods design to analyze data from multiple sources, including intervention usage data, patient-reported outcomes, and realist interviews. In step 1, we conducted a document analysis to develop a program theory that outlines the hypothesized relationships among "individual-level contextual factors, intervention components and features, mechanisms, and outcomes," with special attention paid to user engagement. Among them, intervention components and features depict 10 core characteristics such as transition support information, problem-solving information, and real-time interactivity. The proximal outcomes of interest include user engagement, self-efficacy, and negative emotions, whereas the distal outcomes of interest include transition readiness, self-blood glucose monitoring behaviors, and blood glucose. In step 2, we plan to conduct semistructured realist interviews with the randomized controlled trial's intervention-arm participants to test the hypothesized "context-intervention-mechanism-outcome" configurations. In step 3, we plan to triangulate all sources of data using a coincidence analysis to identify the necessary combinations of factors that determine whether and how the desired outcomes are achieved and use these insights to consolidate the program theory. RESULTS: For step 1 analysis, we have developed the initial program theory and the corresponding data collection plan. For step 2 analysis, participant enrollment for the randomized controlled trial started in January 2023. Participant enrollment for this realist evaluation was anticipated to start in July 2023 and continue until we reached thematic saturation or achieved informational power. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond contributing to knowledge on the multiple pathways that lead to successful engagement with a digital health intervention as well as target outcomes in T1D care transitions, embedding the realist evaluation alongside the trial may inform real-time intervention refinement to improve user engagement and transition experiences. The knowledge gained from this study may inform the design, implementation, and evaluation of future digital health interventions that aim to improve transition experiences. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/46115.
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 | 0.070 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.008 |
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".