MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394586907 · doi:10.2196/50795

Using a Smartwatch App to Understand Young Adult Substance Use: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study

2024· article· en· W4394586907 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sahiti Kunchay, Ashley N. Linden‐Carmichael, Saeed Abdullah

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsPreprintSmartwatchFormative assessmentGo/no goSubstance usePsychologyInternet privacyComputer scienceEngineeringWorld Wide WebWearable computerEmbedded systemClinical psychologyPedagogyOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Young adults in the United States exhibit some of the highest rates of substance use compared to other age groups. Heavy and frequent substance use can be associated with a host of acute and chronic health and mental health concerns. Recent advances in ubiquitous technologies have prompted interest and innovation in using technology-based data collection instruments to understand substance use and associated harms. Existing methods for collecting granular, real-world data primarily rely on the use of smartphones to study and understand substance use in young adults. Wearable devices, such as smartwatches, show significant potential as platforms for data collection in this domain but remain underused. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the design and user evaluation of a smartwatch-based data collection app, which uses ecological momentary assessments to examine young adult substance use in daily life. METHODS: This study used a 2-phase iterative design and acceptability evaluation process with young adults (aged 18-25 y) reporting recent alcohol or cannabis use. In phase 1, participants (8/15, 53%) used the data collection app for 14 days on their Apple Watches to report their substance use patterns, social contexts of substance use, and psychosocial risk factors (eg, affect). After this 14-day deployment, the participants completed a user experience survey and a semistructured interview to record their perspectives and experiences of using the app. Formative feedback from this phase informed feature modification and refinement of the app. In phase 2, an additional cohort (7/15, 47%) used the modified app for 14 days and provided feedback through surveys and interviews conducted after the app use period. RESULTS: Analyses of overall app use patterns indicated high, consistent use of the app, with participants using the app for an average of 11.73 (SD 2.60) days out of 14 days of data collection. Participants reported 67 instances of substance use throughout the study, and our analysis indicates that participants were able to respond to ecological momentary assessment prompts in diverse temporal and situational contexts. Our findings from the user experience survey indicate that participants found the app usable and functional. Comparisons of app use metrics and user evaluation scores indicate that the iterative app design had a measurable and positive impact on users' experience. Qualitative data from the participant interviews highlighted the value of recording substance use patterns, low disruption to daily life, minimal overall burden, preference of platforms (smartphones vs smartwatches), and perspectives relating to privacy and app use in social contexts. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the acceptability of using a smartwatch-based app to collect intensive, longitudinal substance use data among young adults. The findings document the utility of smartwatches as a novel platform to understand sensitive and often-stigmatized behaviors such as substance use with minimal burden.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.202
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207