Exploring the Acceptability and Feasibility of Remote Blood Pressure Measurements and Cognition Assessments Among Participants Recruited From a Safety-Net Emergency Department (Reach Out Cognition): Nonrandomized Mobile Health Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a prevalent cardiovascular risk factor disproportionately affecting Black Americans, who also experience a higher incidence of Alzheimer disease and Alzheimer disease-related dementias. Monitoring blood pressure (BP) and cognition may be important strategies in reducing these disparities. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the Reach Out Cognition study was to explore the feasibility and acceptability of remote cognitive and BP assessments in a predominantly Black, low-income population. METHODS: Reach Out was a randomized, controlled, mobile health-based clinical trial to reduce BP among patients with hypertension at an emergency department in a safety-net hospital (ie, a US hospital in which 25% of the patients are Medicaid recipients). Upon conclusion of Reach Out, participants were given the option of continuing into an extension phase, Reach Out Cognition, that included Bluetooth-enabled BP monitoring and digital cognitive assessments for 6 months. Digital cognitive assessments were text message-linked online surveys of the Self-Administered Gerocognitive Exam and Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders scale. BP assessments were measured with Bluetooth-enabled BP cuffs paired with an app and the data were manually sent to the research team. Outcomes were feasibility (ie, enrollment and 3- and 6-month completion of digital cognitive and BP assessments) and acceptability of assessments using a 4-item validated survey, ranging from 1 (not acceptable) to 5 (completely acceptable). RESULTS: Of the 211 Reach Out participants, 107 (50.7%) consented and 71 (33.6%) completed enrollment in Reach Out Cognition. Participants had a mean age of 49.9 years; 70.4% were female and 57.8% identified as Black. Among the 71 participants, 51 (72%) completed cognitive assessments at 3 months and 34 (48%) completed these assessments at 6 months. BP assessments were completed by 37 (52%) and 20 (28%) of the 71 participants at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Participants were neutral on the acceptability of the digital cognitive assessments (mean 3.7) and Bluetooth self-measured BP (SMBP) monitoring (mean 3.9). Participants noted challenges syncing the BP cuff to the app, internet connection, and transmitting the data to the research team. CONCLUSIONS: Enrollment and assessment completion were low, while acceptability was moderate. Technological advances will eliminate some of the Bluetooth SMBP barriers and offer new strategies for cognitive assessments. Subsequent studies could benefit from offering more comprehensive support to overcome Bluetooth-related hurdles, such as personalized training materials, video conferencing, or in-person research team support. Alternatively, strategies that do not require pairing with an app and passive transmission of data could be considered. Overall, further research is warranted to optimize participant engagement and overcome technological challenges. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03422718; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03422718.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".