Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32554373›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2020

Low-Burden Mobile Monitoring, Intervention, and Real-Time Analysis Using the Wear-IT Framework: Example and Usability Study.

Timothy R Brick, James Mundie, Jonathan Weaver, Robert Fraleigh, Zita Oravecz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Daily associations among craving, affect, and social interactions in the lives of patients during residential opioid use disorder treatment.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Timothy R BrickDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, Real-Time Science Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3339-9279
James MundieDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, Real-Time Science Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2433-4796
Jonathan WeaverDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, Real-Time Science Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9865-2394
Robert FraleighApplied Research Laboratories, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8781-7544
Zita OraveczDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, IMPEC Lab, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9070-3329

Funding

The Center for Innovation in Intensive Longitudinal Studies (CIILS)U24AA027684 · NIAAA · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI CHOW, SY-MIIN · 2018 to 2022
$1.9M
NIAAA NIH HHS U24 AA027684
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health (mHealth) methods often rely on active input from participants, for example, in the form of self-report questionnaires delivered via web or smartphone, to measure health and behavioral indicators and deliver interventions in everyday life settings. For short-term studies or interventions, these techniques are deployed intensively, causing nontrivial participant burden. For cases where the goal is long-term maintenance, limited infrastructure exists to balance information needs with participant constraints. Yet, the increasing precision of passive sensors such as wearable physiology monitors, smartphone-based location history, and internet-of-things devices, in combination with statistical feature selection and adaptive interventions, have begun to make such things possible.

objectiveIn this paper, we introduced Wear-IT, a smartphone app and cloud framework intended to begin addressing current limitations by allowing researchers to leverage commodity electronics and real-time decision making to optimize the amount of useful data collected while minimizing participant burden.

methodsThe Wear-IT framework uses real-time decision making to find more optimal tradeoffs between the utility of data collected and the burden placed on participants. Wear-IT integrates a variety of consumer-grade sensors and provides adaptive, personalized, and low-burden monitoring and intervention. Proof of concept examples are illustrated using artificial data. The results of qualitative interviews with users are provided.

resultsParticipants provided positive feedback about the ease of use of studies conducted using the Wear-IT framework. Users expressed positivity about their overall experience with the framework and its utility for balancing burden and excitement about future studies that real-time processing will enable.

conclusionsThe Wear-IT framework uses a combination of passive monitoring, real-time processing, and adaptive assessment and intervention to provide a balance between high-quality data collection and low participant burden. The framework presents an opportunity to deploy adaptive assessment and intervention designs that use real-time processing and provides a platform to study and overcome the challenges of long-term mHealth intervention.

Indexed as

behavior changeecological momentary assessmentreal-time analysissmartphone apps

Identifiers

PMID32554373
PMCPMC7330734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.