Effectiveness of a Digital Health Intervention Leveraging Reinforcement Learning: Results From the Diabetes and Mental Health Adaptive Notification Tracking and Evaluation (DIAMANTE) Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital and mobile health interventions using personalization via reinforcement learning algorithms have the potential to reach large number of people to support physical activity and help manage diabetes and depression in daily life. OBJECTIVE: The Diabetes and Mental Health Adaptive Notification and Tracking Evaluation (DIAMANTE) study tested whether a digital physical activity intervention using personalized text messaging via reinforcement learning algorithms could increase step counts in a diverse, multilingual sample of people with diabetes and depression symptoms. METHODS: From January 2020 to June 2022, participants were recruited from 4 San Francisco, California-based public primary care clinics and through web-based platforms to participate in the 24-week randomized controlled trial. Eligibility criteria included English or Spanish language preference and a documented diagnosis of diabetes and elevated depression symptoms. The trial had 3 arms: a Control group receiving a weekly mood monitoring message, a Random messaging group receiving randomly selected feedback and motivational text messages daily, and an Adaptive messaging group receiving text messages selected by a reinforcement learning algorithm daily. Randomization was performed with a 1:1:1 allocation. The primary outcome, changes in daily step counts, was passively collected via a mobile app. The primary analysis assessed changes in daily step count using a linear mixed-effects model. An a priori subanalysis compared the primary step count outcome within recruitment samples. RESULTS: In total, 168 participants were analyzed, including those with 24% (40/168) Spanish language preference and 37.5% (63/168) from clinic-based recruitment. The results of the linear mixed-effects model indicated that participants in the Adaptive arm cumulatively gained an average of 3.6 steps each day (95% CI 2.45-4.78; P<.001) over the 24-week intervention (average of 608 total steps), whereas both the Control and Random arm participants had significantly decreased rates of change. Postintervention estimates suggest that participants in the Adaptive messaging arm showed a significant step count increase of 19% (606/3197; P<.001), in contrast to 1.6% (59/3698) and 3.9% (136/3480) step count increase in the Random and Control arms, respectively. Intervention effectiveness differences were observed between participants recruited from the San Francisco clinics and those recruited via web-based platforms, with the significant step count trend persisting across both samples for participants in the Adaptive group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the use of reinforcement learning algorithms for personalizing text messaging interventions to increase physical activity in a diverse sample of people with diabetes and depression. It is the first to test this approach in a large, diverse, and multilingual sample. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03490253; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03490253. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034723.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".