Baseline Smartphone App Survey Return in the Electronic Framingham Heart Study Offspring and Omni 1 Study: eCohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Smartphone apps can be used to monitor chronic conditions and offer opportunities for self-assessment conveniently at home. However, few digital studies include older adults. Objective: We aim to describe a new electronic cohort of older adults embedded in the Framingham Heart Study including baseline smartphone survey return rates and survey completion rates by smartphone type (iPhone [Apple Inc] and Android [Google LLC] users). We also aim to report survey results for selected baseline surveys and participant experience with this study's app. Methods: Framingham Heart Study Offspring and Omni (multiethnic cohort) participants who owned a smartphone were invited to download this study's app that contained a range of survey types to report on different aspects of health including self-reported measures from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). iPhone users also completed 4 tasks including 2 cognitive and 2 physical function testing tasks. Baseline survey return and completion rates were calculated for 12 surveys and compared between iPhone and Android users. We calculated standardized scores for the PROMIS surveys. The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) was deployed 30 days after enrollment to obtain participant feedback on app functionality and aesthetics. Results: We enrolled 611 smartphone users (average age 73.6, SD 6.3 y; n=346, 56.6% women; n=88, 14.4% Omni participants; 478, 78.2% iPhone users) and 596 (97.5%) returned at least 1 baseline survey. iPhone users had higher app survey return rates than Android users for each survey (range 85.5% to 98.3% vs 73.8% to 95.2%, respectively), but survey completion rates did not differ in the 2 smartphone groups. The return rate for the 4 iPhone tasks ranged from 80.9% (380/470) for the gait task to 88.9% (418/470) for the Trail Making Test task. The Electronic Framingham Heart Study participants had better standardized t scores in 6 of 7 PROMIS surveys compared to the general population mean (t score=50) including higher cognitive function (n=55.6) and lower fatigue (n=45.5). Among 469 participants who returned the MARS survey, app functionality and aesthetics was rated high (total MARS score=8.6 on a 1-10 scale). Conclusions: We effectively engaged community-dwelling older adults to use a smartphone app designed to collect health information relevant to older adults. High app survey return rates and very high app survey completion rates were observed along with high participant rating of this study's app.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".