Effect of a Smartphone App (S-Check) on Actual and Intended Help-Seeking and Motivation to Change Methamphetamine Use Among Adult Consumers of Methamphetamine in Australia: Randomized Waitlist-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Interventions are required that address delays in treatment-seeking and low treatment coverage among people consuming methamphetamine. Objective We aim to determine whether a self-administered smartphone-based intervention, the “S-Check app” can increase help-seeking and motivation to change methamphetamine use, and determine factors associated with app engagement. Methods This study is a randomized, 28-day waitlist-controlled trial. Consenting adults residing in Australia who reported using methamphetamine at least once in the last month were eligible to download the app for free from Android or iOS app stores. Those randomized to the intervention group had immediate access to the S-Check app, the control group was wait-listed for 28 days before gaining access, and then all had access until day 56. Actual help-seeking and intention to seek help were assessed by the modified Actual Help Seeking Questionnaire (mAHSQ), modified General Help Seeking Questionnaire, and motivation to change methamphetamine use by the modified readiness ruler. χ2 comparisons of the proportion of positive responses to the mAHSQ, modified General Help Seeking Questionnaire, and modified readiness ruler were conducted between the 2 groups. Logistic regression models compared the odds of actual help-seeking, intention to seek help, and motivation to change at day 28 between the 2 groups. Secondary outcomes were the most commonly accessed features of the app, methamphetamine use, feasibility and acceptability of the app, and associations between S-Check app engagement and participant demographic and methamphetamine use characteristics. Results In total, 560 participants downloaded the app; 259 (46.3%) completed eConsent and baseline; and 84 (32.4%) provided data on day 28. Participants in the immediate access group were more likely to seek professional help (mAHSQ) at day 28 than those in the control group (n=15, 45.5% vs n=12, 23.5%; χ21=4.42, P=.04). There was no significant difference in the odds of actual help-seeking, intention to seek help, or motivation to change methamphetamine use between the 2 groups on the primary logistic regression analyses, while in the ancillary analyses, the imputed data set showed a significant difference in the odds of seeking professional help between participants in the immediate access group compared to the waitlist control group (adjusted odds ratio 2.64, 95% CI 1.19-5.83, P=.02). For participants not seeking help at baseline, each minute in the app increased the likelihood of seeking professional help by day 28 by 8% (ratio 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.22, P=.04). Among the intervention group, a 10-minute increase in app engagement time was associated with a decrease in days of methamphetamine use by 0.4 days (regression coefficient [β] –0.04, P=.02). Conclusions The S-Check app is a feasible low-resource self-administered intervention for adults in Australia who consume methamphetamine. Study attrition was high and, while common in mobile health interventions, warrants larger studies of the S-Check app. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619000534189; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377288&isReview=true
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 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".