Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39556828›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Design Guidelines for Improving Mobile Sensing Data Collection: Prospective Mixed Methods Study.

Christopher Slade, Roberto M Benzo, Peter Washington

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

3 authors.

Christopher SladeComputer Science Department, Brigham Young University-Hawaii, Laie, HI, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-5162-668X
Roberto M BenzoDivision of Cancer Prevention & Control, Department of Internal Medicine, Wexner Medical Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8634-6472
Peter WashingtonInformation and Computer Sciences Department, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3276-4411

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM138062 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA · PI SY, ANGELA U · 2021 to 2025
$15.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM138062
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning models often use passively recorded sensor data streams as inputs to train machine learning models that predict outcomes captured through ecological momentary assessments (EMA). Despite the growth of mobile data collection, challenges in obtaining proper authorization to send notifications, receive background events, and perform background tasks persist.

objectiveWe investigated challenges faced by mobile sensing apps in real-world settings in order to develop design guidelines. For active data, we compared 2 prompting strategies: setup prompting, where the app requests authorization during its initial run, and contextual prompting, where authorization is requested when an event or notification occurs. Additionally, we evaluated 2 passive data collection paradigms: collection during scheduled background tasks and persistent reminders that trigger passive data collection. We investigated the following research questions (RQs): (RQ1) how do setup prompting and contextual prompting affect scheduled notification delivery and the response rate of notification-initiated EMA? (RQ2) Which authorization paradigm, setup or contextual prompting, is more successful in leading users to grant authorization to receive background events? and (RQ3) Which polling-based method, persistent reminders or scheduled background tasks, completes more background sessions?

methodsWe developed mobile sensing apps for iOS and Android devices and tested them through a 30-day user study asking college students (n=145) about their stress levels. Participants responded to a daily EMA question to test active data collection. The sensing apps collected background location events, polled for passive data with persistent reminders, and scheduled background tasks to test passive data collection.

resultsFor RQ1, setup and contextual prompting yielded no significant difference (ANOVA F

conclusionsWe developed design guidelines for improving mobile sensing on consumer mobile devices based on our qualitative and quantitative results. Our qualitative results demonstrated that contextual prompts on iOS devices resulted in inconsistent notification deliveries, unlike setup prompting on Android devices. We therefore recommend using setup prompting for EMA when possible. We found that contextual prompting is more efficient for authorizing background events. We therefore recommend using contextual prompting for passive sensing. Finally, we conclude that developing a persistent reminder and requiring participants to install it provides an additional way to poll for sensor and user data and could improve data collection to support adaptive interventions powered by machine learning.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsAdultData CollectionEcological Momentary AssessmentFemaleGuidelines as TopicHumansMachine LearningMaleProspective StudiesYoung Adultactive data collectioncollegedata consistencyecological momentary assessmentmachine learningmHealthmixed methodmobile datamobile health sensingmobile phonepassive data collectionreal-world settingstudentuser data

Identifiers

PMID39556828
PMCPMC11632896

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.