MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414812143 · doi:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1981_24

Decreased anxiety through haptic technology patch usage: A case-control comparison

2025· article· en· W4414812143 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janet Fason, Jeffrey Gudin, Peter Hurwitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Medicine and Primary Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyModality (human–computer interaction)Quality of life (healthcare)Haptic technologyYoung adultClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Chronic anxiety affects one-third of US adults and has increased by 6% from 2023 to 2024. Medical management is typically psychopharmacology utilizing antidepressants and/or anxiolytics and psychotherapy, but these are not always successful as treatments. Nonadherence or noncompliance to prescribed drugs for mental health disorders is common, and benzodiazepines as an anxiolytic class are also recognized as especially subject to misuse. Settings and Design: This single blinded, case-control study tested the use of a potential alternative or adjunctive treatment for anxiety of a Haptic Vibrotactile Technology patch. Methods and Materials: There were 102 adults enrolled in the study. 65 were assigned to the treatment group (TG) and 37 to the control group (CG). The TG gender ratio was 49 females/16 males; the CG gender ratio was 23 females/14 males. Two types of validated surveys were utilized, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and the Short Form-20 (SF-20), and these two scaled surveys were administered at the three study intervals of Baseline, Day 7, and Day 14. Statistical Analysis Used: The numerically coded quantitative data collected were analyzed using SPSS software. Data were analyzed using paired t-tests and a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05 was used for all statistical comparisons. Results: At Day 14, there was a 31.3% difference between TG and CG for the PSS, showing marked positive effect for the TG patients as compared to the CG patients. The mean PSS score for TG patients decreased by 33%, showing a significant reduction in emotional/mental stress. For the SF-20, a positive change in the TG was shown, with a 23.8% increase in the percent score for the survey's Mental Health domain and a notable increase for the Health Perception domain. At Day 14, >90% of the TG reported satisfaction with the patch; 90% indicated that they would recommend it. In contrast, there was little change in all PSS and SF-20 scores from baseline to Day 14 for the CG; 97.3% of the CG were not at all satisfied with the patch (which was a placebo), and only 3% reported they would recommend it. Conclusions: The overall findings of this clinical trial revealed that the studied patch (PEACE Patch with vibrotactile trigger technology [VTT]; Super Patch Company, Srysty Holding Co, Toronto, Canada) was effective in reducing anxiety symptoms. Gaining a better understanding of how the brain interacts with external stimuli, such as through VTT, may lead to the development of more viable, safe, and effective "drug-free" treatment options, which can provide adults living with chronic anxiety more potential options for relieving their symptoms and acquiring a better overall quality of life. The VTT patch utilized in this study appears to be effective in reducing anxiety symptoms and so may present an alternative or adjunct treatment modality for chronic anxiety. Further research is needed to determine if the results found in our study differ depending upon the specific adult age demographic studied, such as effectiveness in the younger, middle-aged, and senior-aged adult population, rather than across the entire adult age group spectrum, and also in adults with poststroke or post-traumatic brain injury or living with various neurodegenerative disorders.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family Medicine and Primary CareSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207