Effectiveness and User Perception of an In-Vehicle Voice Warning for Hypoglycemia: Development and Feasibility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypoglycemia is a frequent and acute complication in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and is associated with a higher risk of car mishaps. Currently, hypoglycemia can be detected and signaled through flash glucose monitoring or continuous glucose monitoring devices, which require manual and visual interaction, thereby removing the focus of attention from the driving task. Hypoglycemia causes a decrease in attention, thereby challenging the safety of using such devices behind the wheel. Here, we present an investigation of a hands-free technology-a voice warning that can potentially be delivered via an in-vehicle voice assistant. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the feasibility of an in-vehicle voice warning for hypoglycemia, evaluating both its effectiveness and user perception. METHODS: We designed a voice warning and evaluated it in 3 studies. In all studies, participants received a voice warning while driving. Study 0 (n=10) assessed the feasibility of using a voice warning with healthy participants driving in a simulator. Study 1 (n=18) assessed the voice warning in participants with T1DM. Study 2 (n=20) assessed the voice warning in participants with T1DM undergoing hypoglycemia while driving in a real car. We measured participants' self-reported perception of the voice warning (with a user experience scale in study 0 and with acceptance, alliance, and trust scales in studies 1 and 2) and compliance behavior (whether they stopped the car and reaction time). In addition, we assessed technology affinity and collected the participants' verbal feedback. RESULTS: Technology affinity was similar across studies and approximately 70% of the maximal value. Perception measure of the voice warning was approximately 62% to 78% in the simulated driving and 34% to 56% in real-world driving. Perception correlated with technology affinity on specific constructs (eg, Affinity for Technology Interaction score and intention to use, optimism and performance expectancy, behavioral intention, Session Alliance Inventory score, innovativeness and hedonic motivation, and negative correlations between discomfort and behavioral intention and discomfort and competence trust; all P<.05). Compliance was 100% in all studies, whereas reaction time was higher in study 1 (mean 23, SD 5.2 seconds) than in study 0 (mean 12.6, SD 5.7 seconds) and study 2 (mean 14.6, SD 4.3 seconds). Finally, verbal feedback showed that the participants preferred the voice warning to be less verbose and interactive. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to investigate the feasibility of an in-vehicle voice warning for hypoglycemia. Drivers find such an implementation useful and effective in a simulated environment, but improvements are needed in the real-world driving context. This study is a kickoff for the use of in-vehicle voice assistants for digital health interventions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".