New Approach to Equitable Intervention Planning to Improve Engagement and Outcomes in a Digital Health Program: Simulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital health programs provide individualized support to patients with chronic diseases and their effectiveness is measured by the extent to which patients achieve target individual clinical outcomes and the program's ability to sustain patient engagement. However, patient dropout and inequitable intervention delivery strategies, which may unintentionally penalize certain patient subgroups, represent challenges to maximizing effectiveness. Therefore, methodologies that optimize the balance between success factors (achievement of target clinical outcomes and sustained engagement) equitably would be desirable, particularly when there are resource constraints. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to propose a model for digital health program resource management that accounts jointly for the interaction between individual clinical outcomes and patient engagement, ensures equitable allocation as well as allows for capacity planning, and conducts extensive simulations using publicly available data on type 2 diabetes, a chronic disease. METHODS: We propose a restless multiarmed bandit (RMAB) model to plan interventions that jointly optimize long-term engagement and individual clinical outcomes (in this case measured as the achievement of target healthy glucose levels). To mitigate the tendency of RMAB to achieve good aggregate performance by exacerbating disparities between groups, we propose new equitable objectives for RMAB and apply bilevel optimization algorithms to solve them. We formulated a model for the joint evolution of patient engagement and individual clinical outcome trajectory to capture the key dynamics of interest in digital chronic disease management programs. RESULTS: In simulation exercises, our optimized intervention policies lead to up to 10% more patients reaching healthy glucose levels after 12 months, with a 10% reduction in dropout compared to standard-of-care baselines. Further, our new equitable policies reduce the mean absolute difference of engagement and health outcomes across 6 demographic groups by up to 85% compared to the state-of-the-art. CONCLUSIONS: Planning digital health interventions with individual clinical outcome objectives and long-term engagement dynamics as considerations can be both feasible and effective. We propose using an RMAB sequential decision-making framework, which may offer additional capabilities in capacity planning as well. The integration of an equitable RMAB algorithm further enhances the potential for reaching equitable solutions. This approach provides program designers with the flexibility to switch between different priorities and balance trade-offs across various objectives according to their preferences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".