skip to main content
research-article

Just-in-Time but Not Too Much: Determining Treatment Timing in Mobile Health

Published:27 December 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

There is a growing scientific interest in the use and development of just-in-time adaptive interventions in mobile health. These mobile interventions typically involve treatments, such as reminders, activity suggestions and motivational messages, delivered via notifications on a smartphone or a wearable to help users make healthy decisions in the moment. To be effective in influencing health, the combination of the right treatment and right delivery time is likely critical. A variety of prediction/detection algorithms have been developed with the goal of pinpointing the best delivery times. The best delivery times might be times of greatest risk and/or times at which the user might be most receptive to the treatment notifications. In addition, to avoid over burdening users, there is of ten a constraint on the number of treatments that should be provided per time interval (e.g., day or week). Yet there may be many more times at which the user is predicted or detected to be at risk and/or receptive. The goal then is to spread treatment uniformly across all of these times. In this paper, we introduce a method that spreads the treatment uniformly across the delivery times. This method can also be used to provide data for learning whether the treatments are effective at the delivery times. This work is motivated by our work on two mobile health studies, a smoking cessation study and a physical activity study.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Jan G De Gooijer and Rob J Hyndman. 2006. 25 years of time series forecasting. International journal of forecasting 22, 3 (2006), 443--473.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. W. Dempsey, P. Liao, and S.A. Murphy. {n. d.}. Sample size calculations for stratified micro-randomised trials in mHealth. ({n. d.}). Submitted.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. W. Dempsey, P. Liao, P. Klasnja I. Nahun-Shani, and S.A. Murphy. 2015. Randomised trials for the Fitbit generation. Significance 12, 6 (2015), 20--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. M.L. Dennis, C. K. Scott, R. R. Funk, and L. Nicholson. 2015. A pilot study to examine the feasibility and potential effectiveness of using smartphones to provide recovery support for adolescents. Substance abuse 36, 4 (2015), 486--492.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. MR Dimitrijević, J Faganel, M Gregorić, PW Nathan, and JK Trontelj. 1972. Habituation: effects of regular and stochastic stimulation. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 35, 2 (1972), 234--242.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Patrick L. Dulin, Vivian M. Gonzalez, and Kendra Campbell. 2014. Results of a Pilot Test of a Self-Administered Smartphone-Based Treatment System for Alcohol Use Disorders: Usability and Early Outcomes. Substance Abuse 35, 2 (2014), 168--175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. E. Ertin, N. Stohs, S. Kumar, A. Raij, M. al'Absi, and S. Shah. 2011. AutoSense: Unobtrusively Wearable Sensor Suite for Inferring the Onset, Causality, and Consequences of Stress in the Field. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. New York, NY, USA, 274--287. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Syed Monowar Hossain, Timothy Hnat, Nazir Saleheen, Nusrat Jahan Nasrin, Joseph Noor, Bo-Jhang Ho, Tyson Condie, Mani Srivastava, and Santosh Kumar. 2017. mCerebrum: An mHealth Software Platform for Development and Validation of Digital Biomarkers and Interventions. In The ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. P. Klasnja, B. L. Harrison, L. LeGrand, A. LaMarca, J. Froehlich, and S.E. Hudson. 2008. Using Wearable Sensors and Real Time Inference to Understand Human Recall of Routine Activities. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '08). 154--163. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. P. Klasnja, E.B. Hekler, S. Shiffman, A. Boruvka, D. Almirall, A. Tewari, and S.A. Murphy. 2015. Micro-randomized trials: An experimental design for developing just-in-time adaptive interventions. Health Psychology 34, S (2015), 1220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. P. Klasnja, S. Smith, N.J. Seewald, A. Lee, K. Hall, B. Luers, E.B. Hekler, and S.A. Murphy. 2018. Efficacy of contextually-tailored suggestions for physical activity: A micro-randomized optimization trial of HeartSteps. (2018). To appear in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. G. Muhammad, M. Alsulaiman, S. U. Amin, A. Ghoneim, and M. F. Alhamid. 2017. A Facial-Expression Monitoring System for Improved Healthcare in Smart Cities. IEEE Access 5 (2017), 10871--10881.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Inbal Nahum-Shani, Shawna N Smith, Bonnie J Spring, Linda M Collins, Katie Witkiewitz, Ambuj Tewari, and Susan A Murphy. 2016. Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support. Annals of Behavioral Medicine (2016), 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin Pielot, Bruno Cardoso, Kleomenis Katevas, Joan Serrà, Aleksandar Matic, and Nuria Oliver. 2017. Beyond Interruptibility: Predicting Opportune Moments to Engage Mobile Phone Users. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 1, 3, Article 91 (Sept. 2017), 25 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. S. Rathbun, X. Song, B. Neustfiter, and S. Shiffman. 2012. Survival analysis with time-varying covariates measured at random times by design. JR Stat Soc Ser C Appl. Stat. 62, 3 (2012), 419--434.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. N. Saleheen, A.A. Ali, S.M. Hossain, H. Sarker, S. Chatterjee, B. Marlin, E. Ertin, M. al'Absi, and S. Kumar. 2015. puffMarker: A Multi-sensor Approach for Pinpointing the Timing of First Lapse in Smoking Cessation. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 999--1010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. H. Sarker, K. Hovsepian, S. Chatterjee, I. Nahum-Shani, S.A. Murphy, B. Spring, E. Ertin, M. al'Absi, M. Nakajima, and S. Kumar. 2017. From Markers to Interventions: The Case of Just-in-Time Stress Intervention. In Mobile Health Sensors, Analytic Methods, and Applications, J.M. Regh, S.A. Murphy, and S. Kumar (Eds.). Springer International.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. H. Sarker, M. Tyburski, M.M. Rahman, K. Hovsepian, M. Sharmin, D.H. Epstein, K.L. Preston, C.D. Furr-Holden, A. Milam, I. Nahum-Shani, M. al'Absi, and S. Kumar. 2016. Finding Significant Stress Episodes in a Discontinuous Time Series of Rapidly Varying Mobile Sensor Data. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, Santa Clara, California, USA, 4489--4501. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. C.K. Scott, M.L. Dennis, and D.H. Gustafson. 2017. Using smartphones to decrease substance use via self-monitoring and recovery support: study protocol for a randomized control trial. Trials 18, 1 (2017), 374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. C. K. Scott, M. L. Dennis, D. Gustafson, and K. Johnson. 2017. A pilot study of the feasibility and potential effectiveness of using smartphones to provide recovery support. Drug & Alcohol Dependence 171 (2017), e185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Saul Shiffman, Arthur A Stone, and Michael R Hufford. 2008. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 4 (2008), 1--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Arthur Stone, Saul Shiffman, Audie Atienza, and Linda Nebeling. 2007. The science of real-time data capture: Self-reports in health research. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. C. Wen, S. Schneider, A. Stone, and D. Spruijt-Metz. 2017. Compliance With Mobile Ecological Momentary Assessment Protocols in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Med Internet Res 19, 4 (2017), e132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Wikipedia. 2018. KullbackâĂŞLeibler divergence --- Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KullbackâĂŞLeibler_divergence. {Online; accessed 26-July-2018}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Melvyn W B Zhang, John Ward, John J B Ying, Fang Pan, and Roger C M Ho. 2016. The alcohol tracker application: an initial evaluation of user preferences. BMJ Innovations 2, 1 (2016), 8--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Just-in-Time but Not Too Much: Determining Treatment Timing in Mobile Health

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
        Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies  Volume 2, Issue 4
        December 2018
        1169 pages
        EISSN:2474-9567
        DOI:10.1145/3301777
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 27 December 2018
        • Accepted: 1 October 2018
        • Revised: 1 August 2018
        • Received: 1 May 2018
        Published in imwut Volume 2, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader