MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404785527 · doi:10.2196/60759

Relationship Between Heart Rate and Perceived Stress in Intensive Care Unit Residents: Exploratory Analysis Using Fitbit Data

2024· article· en· W4404785527 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ruijing Wang, Olya Rezaeian, Onur Asan, Linghan Zhang, Ting Liao

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rateStressorPercentileMedicineSpearman's rank correlation coefficientHeart rate variabilityIntensive care unitRank correlationStress (linguistics)Physical therapyDemographyPsychologyInternal medicineClinical psychologyStatisticsBlood pressureMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) residents are exposed to high stress levels due to the intense nature of their work, which can impact their mental health and job performance. Heart rate measured through wearable devices has the potential to provide insights into residents' self-reported stress and aid in developing targeted interventions. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory study aims to analyze continuous heart rate data and self-reported stress levels and stressors in ICU residents to examine correlations between physiological responses, stress levels, and daily stressors reported. METHODS: A secondary data analysis was conducted on heart rate measurements and stress assessments collected from 57 ICU residents over a 3-week period using Fitbit Charge 3 devices. These devices captured continuous physiological data alongside daily surveys that assessed stress levels and identified stressors. The study used Spearman rank correlation, point-biserial correlation analysis, 2-tailed paired t tests, and mixed-effect models to analyze the relationship between heart rate features and stress indicators. RESULTS: The findings reveal complex interactions between stress levels and heart rate patterns. The correlation analysis between stress levels and median heart rate values across different percentile ranges showed that lower percentile heart rates (bottom 5%, 10%, 25%, and 50%) had modest correlations with stress, whereas higher percentiles (top 50%, 25%, 10%, and 5%) did not correlate significantly (all P>.05). The 2-tailed paired t test indicated significant differences in stress levels reported in midday versus end-of-day surveys (P<.001), although these changes in stress levels were not consistently reflected in heart rate patterns. Additionally, we explored and found that stressors related to "other health" issues had the highest positive correlation with stress level changes from midday to end-of-day surveys. However, the weak effect of these stressors on peak heart rate suggests that their impact on physiological measures like heart rate is not yet clear. According to our mixed-effects model, stress levels significantly influenced heart rate variations when hierarchical data were taken into account (P=.03), meaning that as the stress level increased, there was a significant increase in mean heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the complexity of using heart rate as an indicator of stress, particularly in high-stress environments like the ICU. Our findings suggest that while heart rate is found to correlate with self-reported stress in the mixed-effect model, its impact is modest, and it should be combined with other physiological and psychological measures to obtain a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of residents' stress levels.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207