Home › Research › Prevention trials
A Machine-Learning Based Approach for Predicting Older Adults' Adherence to Technology-Based Cognitive Training
He Z, Tian S, Singh A, Chakraborty S, Zhang S, Lustria MLA, Charness N, Roque NA et al.. Information processing & management, 2022-07-21
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Adequate adherence is a necessary condition for success with any intervention, including for computerized cognitive training designed to mitigate age-related cognitive decline. Tailored prompting systems offer promise for promoting adherence and facilitating intervention success. However, developing adherence support systems capable of just-in-time adaptive reminders requires understanding the factors that predict adherence, particularly an imminent adherence lapse. In this study we built machine learning models to predict participants' adherence at different levels (overall and weekly) using data collected from a previous cognitive training intervention. We then built machine learning models to predict adherence using a variety of baseline measures (demographic, attitudinal, and cognitive ability variables), as well as deep learning models to predict the next week's adherence using variables derived from training interactions in the previous week. Logistic regression models with selected baseline variables were able to predict overall adherence with moderate accuracy (AUROC: 0.71), while some recurrent neural network models were able to predict weekly adherence with high accuracy (AUROC: 0.84-0.86) based on daily interactions. Analysis of the post hoc explanation of machine learning models revealed that general self-efficacy, objective memory measures, and technology self-efficacy were most predictive of participants' overall adherence, while time of training, sessions played, and game outcomes were predictive of the next week's adherence. Machine-learning based approaches revealed that both individual difference characteristics and previous intervention interactions provide useful information for predicting adherence, and these insights can provide initial clues as to who to target with adherence support strategies and when to provide support. This information will inform the development of a technology-based, just-in-time adherence support systems.
Key findings
- In this study we built machine learning models to predict participants' adherence at different levels (overall and weekly) using data collected from a previous cognitive training intervention.
- Logistic regression models with selected baseline variables were able to predict overall adherence with moderate accuracy (AUROC: 0.71), while some recurrent neural network models were able to predict weekly adherence with high accuracy (AUROC: 0.84-0.86) based on daily interactions.
- Analysis of the post hoc explanation of machine learning models revealed that general self-efficacy, objective memory measures, and technology self-efficacy were most predictive of participants' overall adherence, while time of training, sessions played, and game outcomes were predictive of the next week's adherence.
- Machine-learning based approaches revealed that both individual difference characteristics and previous intervention interactions provide useful information for predicting adherence, and these insights can provide initial clues as to who to target with adherence support strategies and when to provide support.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Information processing & management) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35909793) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
He, Z., Tian, S., Singh, A., Chakraborty, S., Zhang, S., Lustria, M. L. A., et al. (2022). A Machine-Learning Based Approach for Predicting Older Adults' Adherence to Technology-Based Cognitive Training. Information processing & management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103034
Vancouver
He Z, Tian S, Singh A, Chakraborty S, Zhang S, Lustria MLA, et al. A Machine-Learning Based Approach for Predicting Older Adults' Adherence to Technology-Based Cognitive Training. Information processing & management. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103034. PMID: 35909793.
BibTeX
@article{he2022-35909793,
author = {He, Z. and Tian, S. and Singh, A. and Chakraborty, S. and Zhang, S. and Lustria, M. L. A. and Charness, N. and Roque, N. A. and others},
title = {{A Machine-Learning Based Approach for Predicting Older Adults' Adherence to Technology-Based Cognitive Training}},
journal = {Information processing \& management},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103034},
pmid = {35909793},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103034}
}