A Cyberbullying Media-Based Prevention Intervention for Adolescents on Instagram: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundBetween 15% and 70% of adolescents report experiencing cybervictimization. Cybervictimization is associated with multiple negative consequences, including depressed mood. Few validated, easily disseminated interventions exist to prevent cybervictimization and its consequences. With over 97% of adolescents using social media (such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat), recruiting and delivering a prevention intervention through social media and apps may improve accessibility of prevention tools for at-risk youth. ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of and obtain preliminary outcome data on IMPACT (Intervention Media to Prevent Adolescent Cyber-Conflict Through Technology), a brief, remote app-based intervention to prevent and reduce the effect of cyberbullying. MethodsFrom January 30, 2020, to May 3, 2020, a national sample of 80 adolescents with a history of past-year cybervictimization was recruited through Instagram for a randomized control trial of IMPACT, a brief, remote research assistant–led intervention and a fully automated app-based program, versus enhanced web-based resources (control). Feasibility and acceptability were measured by consent, daily use, and validated surveys. Although not powered for efficacy, outcomes (victimization, bystander self-efficacy, and well-being) were measured using validated measures at 8 and 16 weeks and evaluated using a series of longitudinal mixed models. ResultsRegarding feasibility, 24.5% (121/494) of eligible participants provided contact information; of these, 69.4% (84/121) completed full enrollment procedures. Of the participants enrolled, 45% (36/80) were randomized into the IMPACT intervention and 55% (44/80) into the enhanced web-based resources groups. All participants randomized to the intervention condition completed the remote intervention session, and 89% (77/80) of the daily prompts were answered. The retention rate was 99% (79/80) at 8 weeks and 96% (77/80) at 16 weeks for all participants. Regarding acceptability, 100% (36/36) of the intervention participants were at least moderately satisfied with IMPACT overall, and 92% (33/36) of the participants were at least moderately satisfied with the app. At both 8 and 16 weeks, well-being was significantly higher (β=1.17, SE 0.87, P=.02 at 8 weeks and β=3.24, SE 0.95, P<.001 at 16 weeks) and psychological stress was lower (β=−.66, SE 0.08, P=.04 at 8 weeks and β=−.89, SE 0.09, P<.001 at 16 weeks) among IMPACT users than among control group users. Participants in the intervention group attempted significantly more bystander interventions than those in the control group at 8 weeks (β=.82, SE 0.42; P=.02). ConclusionsThis remote app-based intervention for victims of cyberbullying was feasible and acceptable, increased overall well-being and bystander interventions, and decreased psychological stress. Our findings are especially noteworthy given that the trial took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of Instagram to recruit adolescents can be a successful strategy for identifying and intervening with those at the highest risk of cybervictimization. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04259216; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04259216

How College Students Used Information From Institutions of Higher Education in the United States During COVID-19: Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey Study

BackgroundThe start of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions by US institutions of higher education at an unprecedented level. During the backdrop of an emerging pandemic, younger adults (eg, college students) had an overall lower risk for severe outcomes for SARS-CoV-2, making this population a potential source of transmission for age groups with high susceptibility and negative health outcomes. We examine how college students’ level of concern for COVID-19 was influenced by different sources of information, their living status, income level, and other demographic identifiers and its association with prevention behavior change. ObjectiveWe sought to examine the level of concern, defined as the extent to which the participant would take corrective action to mitigate contracting or spreading the virus (to family or friends) by using personal protective equipment such as a face mask, practicing social distancing, and following other public health recommendations, among college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsA cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted in 2021 among 185 college students aged 18-41 years, with most living in New York City and the United States (n=134, 72.4%). Out of 185 college students, 94 provided their zip codes, with 51 of those college students indicating they lived in New York City areas. The participants completed the survey via a QR code. Study participants who did not complete the full survey or were not college students in any US college or university were excluded. Analyses were conducted using R (version 4.2.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing). ResultsOf 185 respondents participated in the study, 25 (13.5.%) used emails from their schools, 51 (27.6%) used mainstream media, and 109 (58.9%) used social media and other sources to obtain information about COVID-19. Of the 109 participants who learned about the pandemic from social media, 91 (83.5%) were concerned; however, only 63% (32/51) and 60% (15/25) of the participants who sourced information from mainstream media and their schools’ email, respectively, were concerned. Further, the participants who received information from social media and other sources were about 3 times more likely to be concerned about COVID-19 than participants who received information from the university via email (P=.036; OR=3.07, 95% CI: 1.06-8.83).. ConclusionsCollege students who received information from social media and other sources were more likely to be concerned about COVID-19 than students who received information from their school via emails

Recent Academic Research on Clinically Relevant Digital Measures: Systematic Review

BackgroundDigital clinical measures collected via various digital sensing technologies such as smartphones, smartwatches, wearables, ingestibles, and implantables are increasingly used by individuals and clinicians to capture health outcomes or behavioral and physiological characteristics of individuals. Although academia is taking an active role in evaluating digital sensing products, academic contributions to advancing the safe, effective, ethical, and equitable use of digital clinical measures are poorly characterized. ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review to characterize the nature of academic research on digital clinical measures and to compare and contrast the types of sensors used and the sources of funding support for specific subareas of this research. MethodsWe conducted a PubMed search using a range of search terms to retrieve peer-reviewed articles reporting US-led academic research on digital clinical measures between January 2019 and February 2021. We screened each publication against specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. We then identified and categorized research studies based on the types of academic research, sensors used, and funding sources. Finally, we compared and contrasted the funding support for these specific subareas of research and sensor types. ResultsThe search retrieved 4240 articles of interest. Following the screening, 295 articles remained for data extraction and categorization. The top five research subareas included operations research (research analysis; n=225, 76%), analytical validation (n=173, 59%), usability and utility (data visualization; n=123, 42%), verification (n=93, 32%), and clinical validation (n=83, 28%). The three most underrepresented areas of research into digital clinical measures were ethics (n=0, 0%), security (n=1, 0.5%), and data rights and governance (n=1, 0.5%). Movement and activity trackers were the most commonly studied sensor type, and physiological (mechanical) sensors were the least frequently studied. We found that government agencies are providing the most funding for research on digital clinical measures (n=192, 65%), followed by independent foundations (n=109, 37%) and industries (n=56, 19%), with the remaining 12% (n=36) of these studies completely unfunded. ConclusionsSpecific subareas of academic research related to digital clinical measures are not keeping pace with the rapid expansion and adoption of digital sensing products. An integrated and coordinated effort is required across academia, academic partners, and academic funders to establish the field of digital clinical measures as an evidence-based field worthy of our trust