Can a Single Variable Predict Early Dropout From Digital Health Interventions? Comparison of Predictive Models From Two Large Randomized Trials.

ACT QuitGuide acceptance and commitment therapy attrition digital interventions dropout eHealth engagement iCanQuit mHealth mobile health mobile phone smartphone apps smoking tobacco trajectories

Journal

Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 01 2023
Historique:
received: 18 10 2022
accepted: 31 12 2022
revised: 22 11 2022
entrez: 20 1 2023
pubmed: 21 1 2023
medline: 25 1 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

A single generalizable metric that accurately predicts early dropout from digital health interventions has the potential to readily inform intervention targets and treatment augmentations that could boost retention and intervention outcomes. We recently identified a type of early dropout from digital health interventions for smoking cessation, specifically, users who logged in during the first week of the intervention and had little to no activity thereafter. These users also had a substantially lower smoking cessation rate with our iCanQuit smoking cessation app compared with users who used the app for longer periods. This study aimed to explore whether log-in count data, using standard statistical methods, can precisely predict whether an individual will become an iCanQuit early dropout while validating the approach using other statistical methods and randomized trial data from 3 other digital interventions for smoking cessation (combined randomized N=4529). Standard logistic regression models were used to predict early dropouts for individuals receiving the iCanQuit smoking cessation intervention app, the National Cancer Institute QuitGuide smoking cessation intervention app, the WebQuit.org smoking cessation intervention website, and the Smokefree.gov smoking cessation intervention website. The main predictors were the number of times a participant logged in per day during the first 7 days following randomization. The area under the curve (AUC) assessed the performance of the logistic regression models, which were compared with decision trees, support vector machine, and neural network models. We also examined whether 13 baseline variables that included a variety of demographics (eg, race and ethnicity, gender, and age) and smoking characteristics (eg, use of e-cigarettes and confidence in being smoke free) might improve this prediction. The AUC for each logistic regression model using only the first 7 days of log-in count variables was 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.97) for iCanQuit, 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93) for QuitGuide, 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.88) for WebQuit.org, and 0.60 (95% CI 0.54-0.66) for Smokefree.gov. Replacing logistic regression models with more complex decision trees, support vector machines, or neural network models did not significantly increase the AUC, nor did including additional baseline variables as predictors. The sensitivity and specificity were generally good, and they were excellent for iCanQuit (ie, 0.91 and 0.85, respectively, at the 0.5 classification threshold). Logistic regression models using only the first 7 days of log-in count data were generally good at predicting early dropouts. These models performed well when using simple, automated, and readily available log-in count data, whereas including self-reported baseline variables did not improve the prediction. The results will inform the early identification of people at risk of early dropout from digital health interventions with the goal of intervening further by providing them with augmented treatments to increase their retention and, ultimately, their intervention outcomes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
A single generalizable metric that accurately predicts early dropout from digital health interventions has the potential to readily inform intervention targets and treatment augmentations that could boost retention and intervention outcomes. We recently identified a type of early dropout from digital health interventions for smoking cessation, specifically, users who logged in during the first week of the intervention and had little to no activity thereafter. These users also had a substantially lower smoking cessation rate with our iCanQuit smoking cessation app compared with users who used the app for longer periods.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to explore whether log-in count data, using standard statistical methods, can precisely predict whether an individual will become an iCanQuit early dropout while validating the approach using other statistical methods and randomized trial data from 3 other digital interventions for smoking cessation (combined randomized N=4529).
METHODS
Standard logistic regression models were used to predict early dropouts for individuals receiving the iCanQuit smoking cessation intervention app, the National Cancer Institute QuitGuide smoking cessation intervention app, the WebQuit.org smoking cessation intervention website, and the Smokefree.gov smoking cessation intervention website. The main predictors were the number of times a participant logged in per day during the first 7 days following randomization. The area under the curve (AUC) assessed the performance of the logistic regression models, which were compared with decision trees, support vector machine, and neural network models. We also examined whether 13 baseline variables that included a variety of demographics (eg, race and ethnicity, gender, and age) and smoking characteristics (eg, use of e-cigarettes and confidence in being smoke free) might improve this prediction.
RESULTS
The AUC for each logistic regression model using only the first 7 days of log-in count variables was 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.97) for iCanQuit, 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93) for QuitGuide, 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.88) for WebQuit.org, and 0.60 (95% CI 0.54-0.66) for Smokefree.gov. Replacing logistic regression models with more complex decision trees, support vector machines, or neural network models did not significantly increase the AUC, nor did including additional baseline variables as predictors. The sensitivity and specificity were generally good, and they were excellent for iCanQuit (ie, 0.91 and 0.85, respectively, at the 0.5 classification threshold).
CONCLUSIONS
Logistic regression models using only the first 7 days of log-in count data were generally good at predicting early dropouts. These models performed well when using simple, automated, and readily available log-in count data, whereas including self-reported baseline variables did not improve the prediction. The results will inform the early identification of people at risk of early dropout from digital health interventions with the goal of intervening further by providing them with augmented treatments to increase their retention and, ultimately, their intervention outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36662550
pii: v25i1e43629
doi: 10.2196/43629
pmc: PMC9898835
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e43629

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA247156
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA253975
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA192849
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

©Jonathan Bricker, Zhen Miao, Kristin Mull, Margarita Santiago-Torres, David M Vock. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 20.01.2023.

Références

Prev Sci. 2004 Sep;5(3):185-96
pubmed: 15470938
Addict Behav. 2007 Oct;32(10):2420-4
pubmed: 17478057
Transl Behav Med. 2019 Nov 25;9(6):1076-1086
pubmed: 30445507
Int J Eat Disord. 2022 Jun;55(6):845-850
pubmed: 35560256
J Med Internet Res. 2017 May 30;19(5):e187
pubmed: 28559223
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 20;20(4):e10143
pubmed: 29678799
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Nov 1;180(11):1472-1480
pubmed: 32955554
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Sep 04;21(9):e13617
pubmed: 31486409
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Mar 31;16(3):e92
pubmed: 24686856
Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2022 May 1;35(3):207-218
pubmed: 35579875
J Thorac Oncol. 2010 Sep;5(9):1315-6
pubmed: 20736804
JMIR Ment Health. 2022 May 12;9(5):e35159
pubmed: 35551058
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 28;22(10):e17738
pubmed: 33112241
Addiction. 2018 May;113(5):914-923
pubmed: 29235186
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 21;7(1):e9967
pubmed: 30664489
BMC Public Health. 2020 Nov 16;20(1):1719
pubmed: 33198700
Nicotine Tob Res. 2014 Nov;16(11):1446-54
pubmed: 24935757
J Med Internet Res. 2009 Apr 24;11(2):e13
pubmed: 19403466
Psychiatr Serv. 2021 Apr 1;72(4):448-451
pubmed: 33557599
Front Public Health. 2022 Aug 11;10:787135
pubmed: 36033812
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Feb 21;19(2):e46
pubmed: 28223262
Transl Behav Med. 2014 Sep;4(3):260-74
pubmed: 25264466
Front Psychiatry. 2022 Jan 20;12:794785
pubmed: 35126204
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Sep 29;4(3):e114
pubmed: 27688034
J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Nov;49(11):1225-31
pubmed: 8892489
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 5;12(7):e0180735
pubmed: 28678880
Front Psychol. 2021 Sep 03;12:734633
pubmed: 34552539
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Aug 18;24(8):e39208
pubmed: 35831180
BMC Bioinformatics. 2011 Mar 17;12:77
pubmed: 21414208
J Med Internet Res. 2005 Mar 31;7(1):e11
pubmed: 15829473
Am J Prev Med. 2014 Sep;47(3):242-50
pubmed: 24913220
J Med Internet Res. 2010 Dec 17;12(4):e71
pubmed: 21169160
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 22;17(15):
pubmed: 32708016
Behav Ther. 2013 Jun;44(2):180-98
pubmed: 23611068
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Nov 10;17(11):e253
pubmed: 26554314
J Clin Med. 2021 Sep 22;10(19):
pubmed: 34640321
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 10;8(2):e018320
pubmed: 29440155
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Aug 31;5(9):
pubmed: 27581172
Obes Rev. 2011 Nov;12(11):912-34
pubmed: 21815990
Am J Prev Med. 2008 Aug;35(2):158-76
pubmed: 18617085
Br J Clin Psychol. 2010 Nov;49(Pt 4):455-71
pubmed: 19799804
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 22;10:CD006611
pubmed: 31638271

Auteurs

Jonathan Bricker (J)

Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, United States.
Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Zhen Miao (Z)

Department of Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Kristin Mull (K)

Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, United States.

Margarita Santiago-Torres (M)

Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, United States.

David M Vock (DM)

Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH