Digital Self-Management Platform for Adult Asthma: Randomized Attention-Placebo Controlled Trial (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Asthma is one of the most common chronic conditions worldwide, with a substantial individual and health care burden. Digital apps hold promise as a highly accessible, low-cost method of enhancing self-management in asthma, which is critical to effective asthma control. OBJECTIVE We conducted a fully remote randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the efficacy of juli, a commercially available smartphone self-management platform for asthma. METHODS We conducted a pragmatic single-blind, RCT of juli for asthma management. Our study included participants aged 18 years and older who self-identified as having asthma and had an Asthma Control Test (ACT) score of 19 or lower (indicating uncontrolled asthma) at the beginning of the trial. Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive juli for 8 weeks or a limited attention-placebo control version of the app. The primary outcome measure was the difference in ACT scores after 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included remission (ACT score greater than 19), minimal clinically important difference (an improvement of 3 or more points on the ACT), worsening of asthma, and health-related quality of life. The primary analysis included participants using the app for 8 weeks (per-protocol analysis), and the secondary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. RESULTS We randomized 411 participants between May 2021 and April 2023: a total of 152 (37%) participants engaged with the app for 8 weeks and were included in the per-protocol analysis, and 262 (63.7%) participants completed the week-2 outcome assessment and were included in the modified ITT analysis. Total attrition between baseline and week 8 was 259 (63%) individuals. In the per-protocol analysis, the intervention group had a higher mean ACT score (17.93, SD 4.72) than the control group (16.24, SD 5.78) by week 8 (baseline adjusted coefficient 1.91, 95% CI 0.31-3.51; P=.02). Participants using juli had greater odds of achieving or exceeding the minimal clinically important difference at 8 weeks (adjusted odds ratio 2.38, 95% CI 1.20-4.70; P=.01). There were no between group differences in the other secondary outcomes at 8 weeks. The results from the modified ITT analyses were similar. CONCLUSIONS Users of juli had improved asthma symptom control over 8 weeks compared with users of a version of the app with limited functionality. These findings suggest that juli is an effective digital self-management platform that could augment existing care pathways for asthma. The retention of patients in RCTs and real-world use of digital health care apps is a major challenge. CLINICALTRIAL International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry ISRCTN87679686; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN87679686
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".