MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386725503 · doi:10.2196/43099

The Dosing of Mobile-Based Just-in-Time Adaptive Self-Management Prompts for Caregivers: Preliminary Findings From a Pilot Microrandomized Study

2023· article· en· W4386725503 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jitao Wang, Zhenke Wu, Sung Won Choi, Srijan Sen, Xinghui Yan, Jennifer A. Miner, Angelle M. Sander, Angela K. Lyden, Jonathan P. Troost, Noelle E. Carlozzi

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNorthwestern University
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)AnxietyQuality of life (healthcare)mHealthPhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Caregivers of people with chronic illnesses often face negative stress-related health outcomes and are unavailable for traditional face-to-face interventions due to the intensity and constraints of their caregiver role. Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) have emerged as a design framework that is particularly suited for interventional mobile health studies that deliver in-the-moment prompts that aim to promote healthy behavioral and psychological changes while minimizing user burden and expense. While JITAIs have the potential to improve caregivers' health-related quality of life (HRQOL), their effectiveness for caregivers remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the dose-response relationship of a fully automated JITAI-based self-management intervention involving personalized mobile app notifications targeted at decreasing the level of caregiver strain, anxiety, and depression. The secondary objective is to investigate whether the effectiveness of this mobile health intervention was moderated by the caregiver group. We also explored whether the effectiveness of this intervention was moderated by (1) previous HRQOL measures, (2) the number of weeks in the study, (3) step count, and (4) minutes of sleep. METHODS: We examined 36 caregivers from 3 disease groups (10 from spinal cord injury, 11 from Huntington disease, and 25 from allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation) in the intervention arm of a larger randomized controlled trial (subjects in the other arm received no prompts from the mobile app) designed to examine the acceptability and feasibility of this intensive type of trial design. A series of multivariate linear models implementing a weighted and centered least squares estimator were used to assess the JITAI efficacy and effect. RESULTS: We found preliminary support for a positive dose-response relationship between the number of administered JITAI messages and JITAI efficacy in improving caregiver strain, anxiety, and depression; while most of these associations did not meet conventional levels of significance, there was a significant association between high-frequency JITAI and caregiver strain. Specifically, administering 5-6 messages per week as opposed to no messages resulted in a significant decrease in the HRQOL score of caregiver strain with an estimate of -6.31 (95% CI -11.76 to -0.12; P=.046). In addition, we found that the caregiver groups and the participants' levels of depression in the previous week moderated JITAI efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence to support the effectiveness of the self-management JITAI and offers practical guidance for designing future personalized JITAI strategies for diverse caregiver groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04556591; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04556591.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207