Abstract 18858: At Heart <i>,</i> a Progressive Web App for Women With Heart Disease: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction/Background: At heart ’s novel core feature set includes a Heart Check, Wellness Check, and a Library, with an interactive Chatbot to manage its content and conversations. at heart is the first of its kind; there are no previous trials of an intervention rigorously developed and tested. Goals/Aims: The overall goal of this study was to develop and evaluate a digital health intervention for women with heart disease. Specific aims of the pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) were to examine: 1) the feasibility of randomization, recruitment, and retention, 2) acceptability and barriers to implementation (including the symptom triage algorithms), and 3) engagement with the intervention. Methods/Approach: This was a two-group parallel single blind pilot RCT. Women greater than 18 years of age with heart disease were recruited, all women spoke and read English. Following completion of baseline measures, participants were randomized to either an intervention or a usual care group. Participants randomized to the intervention group used at heart for 3 months. Recruitment, retention, and adverse events were tracked and engagement was assessed using Google Analytics . Acceptability was assessed with a six-item modified Acceptability e-Scale (AES), yielding a total acceptability score of 6-30. Results/Data: A total of 98 women were assessed for eligibility, 18 were excluded. Eighty women were randomized, 40 allocated to usual care and 40 to receive the intervention. Attrition was low. Mean age was 57 years (SD 13), 32% (n=27) were employed full time, and 48% (n=41) had a post-secondary diploma/certificate. There were 226 heart checks; 1-15 per participant, most symptoms were triaged as low risk (n=176, 78%). There were 198 wellness checks, 1-12 per participant. The mean number of articles accessed in the library was 8 per participant. The mean acceptability score was 23.46 (SD 4.87), there were no barriers to implementation, and no adverse events were reported. Conclusion(s): The at heart intervention is feasible; women were engaged and reported high acceptability scores. A larger, powered RCT is necessary.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".