Detecting and Understanding Social Influence During Drinking Situations: Protocol for a Bluetooth-Based Sensor Feasibility and Acceptability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-risk alcohol consumption among young adults frequently occurs in the presence of peers who are also drinking. A high-risk drinking situation may consist of particular social network members who have a primary association with drinking. Fine-grained approaches such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) are growing in popularity for studying real-time social influence, but studies using these approaches exclusively rely on participant self-report. Passive indicators of peer presence using Bluetooth-based technology to detect real-time interactions have the potential to assist in the development of just-in-time interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to examine the feasibility and acceptability of using a Bluetooth-based sensor and smartphone app to measure social contact in real-world drinking situations. METHODS: Young adults (N=20) who drink heavily and report social drinking will be recruited from the community to participate in a 3-week EMA study. Using a social network interview, index participants will identify and recruit 3 of their friends to carry a Bluetooth beacon. Participants will complete a series of EMA reports on their own personal Android devices including random reports; morning reports; first-drink reports; and signal-contingent reports, which are triggered following the detection of a beacon carried by a peer participant. EMA will assess alcohol use and characteristics of the social environment, including who is nearby and who is drinking. For items about peer proximity and peer drinking, a customized peer list will be presented to participants. Feedback about the study protocol will be ascertained through weekly contact with both index and peer participants, followed by a qualitative interview at the end of the study. We will examine the feasibility and acceptability of recruitment, enrollment of participants and peers, and retention. Feasibility will be determined using indexes of eligibility, enrollment, and recruitment. Acceptability will be determined through participant enrollment and retention, protocol compliance, and participant-reported measures of acceptability. Feasibility and acceptability for peer participants will be informed by enrollment rates, latency to enrollment, compliance with carrying the beacon, and self-reported reasons for compliance or noncompliance with beacon procedures. Finally, EMA data about peer proximity and peer drinking will support the validity of the peer selection process. RESULTS: Participant recruitment began in February 2023, and enrollment was completed in December 2023. Results will be reported in 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The protocol allows us to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a Bluetooth-based sensor for the detection of social contact between index participants and their friends, including social interactions during real-world drinking situations. Data from this study will inform just-in-time adaptive interventions seeking to address drinking in the natural environment by providing personalized feedback about a high-risk social context and alerting an individual that they are in a potentially unsafe situation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/50650.
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 | 0.043 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.017 |
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".