| Literature DB >> 28687533 |
Noelle Regina Leonard1,2, Michelle Silverman2,3, Dawa Phuti Sherpa1, Madeline A Naegle3, Hyorim Kim4, Donna L Coffman5, Marcy Ferdschneider6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of mobile app interventions have been developed for problem drinking among college students; however, few studies have examined the integration of a mobile app with continuous physiological monitoring and alerting of affective states related to drinking behaviors.Entities:
Keywords: acceptability studies; alcohol use; college students; ecological momentary intervention; feasibility studies; wearable sensors
Year: 2017 PMID: 28687533 PMCID: PMC5522582 DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.7399
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Figure 1Study flow.
Theory table.
| Theory | Technique | Intervention component | Delivery method | Example |
| Elicit recognition of problem(s) | Drinking feedback | ISb | What are your thoughts about your AUDIT-Cc score? Do you think it places you at risk for health problems? | |
| Assess risk | Risk self-assessment | IS | Would you say you sometimes are a “risky drinker?” | |
| CBT, MI | Drinking context | Identify triggers or cues | IS, teche | Do certain situations act as cues to drink? |
| MI | Motivation | Decisional balance | IS | Are there harms of drinking that you would like to avoid? |
| MI | Assess readiness | Readiness for change assessment | IS | On a scale of 1-10, how ready would you say you are to cut back or quit drinking? |
| CBT, MI | Goal-setting | Drinking plan | IS | If you choose to cut back, what would you want to consider in making your plan (eg, number of drinks and frequency)? |
| CBT | Identify feelings | Feeling scale | Tech | How are you feeling? |
| CBT | Coping | Coping statements | Tech | Freeze, breathe, choose |
| CBT | Positive self-talk | Cool thoughts | Tech | My thoughts are not me |
| CBT | Protective behavioral strategies | Coping with triggers | IS, tech | Take a cab home |
aMI: motivational interviewing.
bIS: in-person session.
cAUDIT-C: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption.
dCBT: cognitive behavioral therapy.
etech= Mind the Moment (MtM) technology.
Figure 2Empatica E4 sensorband.
Figure 3MtM app contents.
Acceptability Questionnaire (n=10).
| Survey item | Mean (SDa) |
| How would you rate the quality of service you received?b | 3.60 (0.70) |
| To what extent has our program met your needs?b | 3.50 (0.71) |
| If a friend were in need of similar help, would you recommend our program to him or her?b | 3.20 (0.42) |
| How satisfied are you with the amount of help you received?b | 3.50 (0.71) |
| Have the services you received helped you deal more effectively with your problems?b | 3.00 (0.00) |
| To what extent have you met your personal goals in reducing risky drinking?c | 2.60 (0.70 |
| How satisfied are you with the sensorband?c | 2.60 (0.84) |
| How satisfied are you with the smartphone app?c | 2.60 (0.70) |
| How effective were the smartphone app and sensorband in helping you meet your goal?c | 2.30 (0.95) |
| How would you rate your experience learning to use the sensorband and smartphone app?c | 3.60 (0.52) |
| How does this experience compare with other times you have tried to reduce risky drinking?c | 3.00 (1.05) |
aSD: standard deviation.
bItems are from the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire [46].
cItems were developed for the study. All scores were based on a 4-point Likert scale with higher scores indicating more acceptability.
Rank ordered emotions for sensorband reports.
| Emotion | # of reports |
| Stressed | 68 |
| Anxious or nervous | 41 |
| Tired | 41 |
| Satisfied | 28 |
| Excited or energized | 26 |
| Frustrated | 15 |
| Happy | 9 |
| Relieved | 4 |
| Sad | 4 |
| Embarrassed | 1 |
Rank ordered contexts for sensorband reports.
| Context | # of reports |
| School or work issue | 118 |
| Other | 23 |
| Friend issue | 13 |
| Relationship or dating issue | 7 |
| Getting ready to go out | 4 |
| Talking to someone attractive | 2 |
| Family issue | 2 |
| In a new or uncomfortable situation | 1 |
Figure 4Number of completed reports by participants for each type of response (sensorband or self-initiated). The number of reports includes positive and negatively valenced emotions and personalized emotions (“other”).
Negative valance reports with screen time (seconds).
| PIDa | Total | Self | Sensor | |||||||
| # of reports | Sum | Mean (SDb) | # of reports | Sum | Mean (SD) | # of reports | Sum | Mean (SD) | ||
| 303 | 15 | 576.03 | 38.40 (26.41) | 1 | 91.27 | 91.27 (N/Ac) | 14 | 484.76 | 34.63 (22.82) | |
| 308 | 11 | 572.40 | 52.04 (31.03) | 5 | 362.04 | 72.41 (30.21) | 6 | 210.36 | 35.06 (20.84) | |
| 310 | 5 | 255.92 | 51.18 (28.12) | 4 | 218.91 | 54.73 (31.16) | 1 | 37.02 | 37.02 (N/A) | |
| 311 | 40 | 1057.55 | 26.44 (15.17) | 1 | 20.64 | 20.64 (N/A) | 39 | 1036.91 | 26.59 (15.34) | |
| 312 | 10 | 622.47 | 62.25 (30.10) | 1 | 121.48 | 121.48 (N/A) | 9 | 500.99 | 55.67 (23.07) | |
| 313 | 80 | 1512.66 | 18.91 (12.48) | 4 | 203.51 | 50.88 (25.74) | 76 | 1309.15 | 1723 (8.96) | |
| 314 | 5 | 373.20 | 74.64 (56.93) | 1 | 171.04 | 171.04 (N/A) | 4 | 202.16 | 50.54 (21.21) | |
| 315 | 19 | 1365.45 | 71.87 (67.08) | 12 | 1199.63 | 99.97 (70.66) | 7 | 165.82 | 23.69 (7.43) | |
| 316 | 11 | 401.64 | 36.51 (28.81) | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 (N/A) | 11 | 401.64 | 36.51 (28.81) | |
| 317 | 9 | 499.40 | 55.49 (44.42) | 6 | 328.44 | 54.74 (49.08) | 3 | 170.95 | 56.98 (43.20) | |
PID: Participant ID
SD: standard deviation.
N/A: not applicable.