A Digital Intervention to Promote Self-Management Self-Efficacy Among Community-Dwelling Individuals With Stroke: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital interventions provided through smartphones or the internet that are guided by a coach have been proposed as promising solutions to support the self-management of chronic conditions. However, digital intervention for poststroke self-management is limited; we developed the interactive Self-Management Augmented by Rehabilitation Technologies (iSMART) intervention to address this gap. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the feasibility and initial effects of the iSMART intervention to improve self-management self-efficacy in people with stroke. METHODS: A parallel, 2-arm, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial of 12-week duration was conducted. A total of 24 participants with mild-to-moderate chronic stroke were randomized to receive either the iSMART intervention or a manual of stroke rehabilitation (attention control). iSMART was a coach-guided, technology-supported self-management intervention designed to support people managing chronic conditions and maintaining active participation in daily life after stroke. Feasibility measures included retention and engagement rates in the iSMART group. For both the iSMART intervention and active control groups, we used the Feasibility of Intervention Measure, Acceptability of Intervention Measure, and Intervention Appropriateness Measure to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness, respectively. Health measures included the Participation Strategies Self-Efficacy Scale and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System's Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Conditions. RESULTS: The retention rate was 82% (9/11), and the engagement (SMS text message response) rate was 78% for the iSMART group. Mean scores of the Feasibility of Intervention Measure, Acceptability of Intervention Measure, and Intervention Appropriateness Measure were 4.11 (SD 0.61), 4.44 (SD 0.73), and 4.36 (SD 0.70), respectively, which exceeded our benchmark (4 out of 5), suggesting high feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of iSMART. The iSMART group showed moderate-to-large effects in improving self-efficacy in managing emotions (r=0.494), symptoms (r=0.514), daily activities (r=0.593), and treatments and medications (r=0.870), but the control group showed negligible-to-small effects in decreasing self-efficacy in managing emotions (r=0.252), symptoms (r=0.262), daily activities (r=0.136), and treatments and medications (r=0.049). In addition, the iSMART group showed moderate-to-large effects of increasing the use of participation strategies for management in the home (r=0.554), work (r=0.633), community (r=0.673), and communication activities (r=0.476). In contrast, the control group showed small-to-large effects of decreasing the use of participation strategies for management in the home (r=0.567), work (r=0.342, community (r=0.215), and communication activities (r=0.379). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the idea that iSMART was feasible to improve poststroke self-management self-efficacy. Our results also support using a low-cost solution, such as SMS text messaging, to supplement traditional therapeutic patient education interventions. Further evaluation with a larger sample of participants is still needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov 202004137; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04743037?id=202004137&rank=1.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".