Exploring Fit in a Mobile Health Intervention for Alcohol Use Disorder: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Implementation frameworks such as the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment model emphasize the importance of the fit between an intervention and its context, which includes the needs of its target population, as well as the culture, resources, and capabilities of the implementing organization. Although lack of fit is a major barrier to implementation, fit has not often been a focus of implementation research. This paper uses fit as a lens to examine the implementation of Tula, a mobile health app aimed at reducing risky drinking days among individuals meeting the criteria for mild to moderate alcohol use disorder, in a 3-arm (app alone, app plus peer mentoring, and app plus health coaching) randomized controlled trial. Objective: We sought to better understand the trial results and to provide actionable guidance for future implementation of digital health interventions in health care organizations. Methods: Semistructured interviews with 18 trial participants and 7 Tula implementers were conducted. Trial participants were pulled equally from each arm of the trial and represented participants who demonstrated both high and low engagement with the app. Implementers consisted of a project manager, 4 peer mentors, and 2 health coaches. Interviews with participants focused on their motivations, opinions, and experiences of the intervention and their perception of their drinking behavior following the intervention, including how their use of the app worked to change that behavior. Interviews with implementers were centered on their roles, theories of change, perceptions of intervention, and areas for improvement. All interviews were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis with deductive and inductive components. Results: We identified areas of both fit and misfit. For example, there was a good fit between implementers' theories of change and participants' description of how change occurred. Fit was improved by the versatility of the app, which allowed participants to customize their experiences. Conversely, misfit was noted in the app's inability to cultivate connection for many participants and a disjunction between the role of peer mentors in the intervention and their broader professional ethos. Conclusions: Focusing on fit provides a useful guide to enhance future iterations of the Tula app that lead to better sustainment of the intervention.
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 | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".