Decision Trade-Offs in Ecological Momentary Assessments and Digital Wearables Uptake: Protocol for a Discrete Choice Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) and digital wearables (DW) are commonly used remote monitoring technologies that capture real-time data in people's natural environments. Real-time data are core to personalized medical care and intensively adaptive health interventions. The utility of such personalized care is contingent on user uptake and continued use of EMA and DW. Consequently, it is critical to understand user preferences that may increase the uptake of EMA and DW. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to quantify users' preferences of EMA and DW, examine variations in users' preferences across demographic and behavioral subgroups, and assess the association between users' preferences and intentions to use EMA and DW. METHODS: We will administer 2 discrete choice experiments (DCEs) paired with self-report surveys on the internet to a total of 3260 US adults through Qualtrics. The first DCE will assess participants' EMA preferences using a choice-based conjoint design that will ask participants to compare the relative importance of prompt frequency, number of questions per prompt, prompt type, health topic, and assessment duration. The second DCE will measure participants' DW preferences using a maximum difference scaling design that will quantify the relative importance of device characteristics, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating technical, health care, and market factors. Hierarchical Bayesian multinomial logistic regression models will be used to generate subject-specific preference utilities. Preference utilities will be compared across demographic (ie, sex, age, race, and ethnicity) and behavioral (ie, substance use, physical activity, dietary behavior, and sleep duration) subgroups. Regression models will determine whether specific utilities are associated with attitudes toward or intentions to use EMA and DW. Mixture models will determine the associations of attitudes toward and intentions to use EMA and DW with latent profiles of user preferences. RESULTS: The institutional review board approved the study on December 19, 2022. Data collection started on January 20, 2023, and concluded on May 4, 2023. Data analysis is currently underway. CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide evidence on users' preferences of EMA and DW features that can improve initial uptake and potentially continued use of these remote monitoring tools. The sample size and composition allow for subgroup analysis by demographics and health behaviors and will provide evidence on associations between users' preferences and intentions to uptake EMA and DW. Limitations include the cross-sectional nature of the study, which limits our ability to measure direct behavior. Rather, we capture behavioral intentions for EMA and DW uptake. The nonprobability sample limits the generalizability of the results and introduces self-selection bias related to the demographic and behavioral characteristics of participants who belong to web-based survey panels. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/47567.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".