Digital Interventions to Understand and Mitigate Stress Response: Protocol for Process and Content Evaluation of a Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Staffing and resource shortages, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, have increased stress levels among health care workers. Many health care workers have reported feeling unable to maintain the quality of care expected within their profession, which, at times, may lead to moral distress and moral injury. Currently, interventions for moral distress and moral injury are limited. OBJECTIVE: This study has the following aims: (1) to characterize and reduce stress and moral distress related to decision-making in morally complex situations using a virtual reality (VR) scenario and a didactic intervention; (2) to identify features contributing to mental health outcomes using wearable, physiological, and self-reported questionnaire data; and (3) to create a personal digital phenotype profile that characterizes stress and moral distress at the individual level. METHODS: This will be a single cohort, pre- and posttest study of 100 nursing professionals in Ontario, Canada. Participants will undergo a VR simulation that requires them to make morally complex decisions related to patient care, which will be administered before and after an educational video on techniques to mitigate distress. During the VR session, participants will complete questionnaires measuring their distress and moral distress, and physiological data (electrocardiogram, electrodermal activity, plethysmography, and respiration) will be collected to assess their stress response. In a subsequent 12-week follow-up period, participants will complete regular assessments measuring clinical outcomes, including distress, moral distress, anxiety, depression, and loneliness. A wearable device will also be used to collect continuous data for 2 weeks before, throughout, and for 12 weeks after the VR session. A pre-post comparison will be conducted to analyze the effects of the VR intervention, and machine learning will be used to create a personal digital phenotype profile for each participant using the physiological, wearable, and self-reported data. Finally, thematic analysis of post-VR debriefing sessions and exit interviews will examine reoccurring codes and overarching themes expressed across participants' experiences. RESULTS: The study was funded in 2022 and received research ethics board approval in April 2023. The study is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: It is expected that the VR scenario will elicit stress and moral distress. Additionally, the didactic intervention is anticipated to improve understanding of and decrease feelings of stress and moral distress. Models of digital phenotypes developed and integrated with wearables could allow for the prediction of risk and the assessment of treatment responses in individuals experiencing moral distress in real-time and naturalistic contexts. This paradigm could also be used in other populations prone to moral distress and injury, such as military and public safety personnel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05923398; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05923398. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54180.

Validity and reliability of the Oura Ring Generation 3 (Gen3) with Oura sleep staging algorithm 2.0 (OSSA 2.0) when compared to multi-night ambulatory polysomnography: A validation study of 96 participants and 421,045 epochs.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity and the reliability of the Oura Ring Generation 3 (Gen3) with Oura Sleep Staging Algorithm 2.0 (OSSA 2.0) through multi-night polysomnography (PSG). PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Participants were 96 generally healthy Japanese men and women aged between 20 and 70 years contributing with 421,045 30-s epochs. Sleep scoring was performed according to American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria. Each participant could contribute with a maximum of three polysomnography (PSG) nights. Within-participant means were created for each sleep measure and paired t-tests were used to compare equivalent measures obtained from the PSG and Oura Rings (non-dominant and dominant hand). Agreement between sleep measures were assessed using Bland-Altman plots. Interrater reliability for epoch accuracy was determined by prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). RESULTS: The Oura Ring did not significantly differ from PSG for the measures time in bed, total sleep time, sleep onset latency, sleep period time, wake after sleep onset, time spent in light sleep, and time spent in deep sleep. Oura Rings worn on the non-dominant- and dominant-hand underestimated sleep efficiency by 1.1 %-1.5 % and time spent in REM sleep by 4.1-5.6 min. The Oura Ring had a sensitivity of 94.4 %-94.5 %, specificity of 73.0 %-74.6 %, a predictive value for sleep of 95.9 %-96.1 %, a predictive value for wake of 66.6 %-67.0 %, and accuracy of 91.7 %-91.8 %. PABAK was 0.83-0.84 and reliability was 94.8 %. Sleep staging accuracy ranged between 75.5 % (light sleep) and 90.6 % (REM sleep). CONCLUSIONS: The Oura Ring Gen3 with OSSA 2.0 shows good agreement with PSG for global sleep measures and time spent in light and deep sleep.

Assessing Adherence to Multi-Modal Oura Ring Wearables From COVID-19 Detection Among Healthcare Workers.

Background Identifying early signs of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers could be a critical tool in reducing disease transmission. To provide this information, both daily symptom surveys and wearable device monitoring could have utility, assuming there is a sufficiently high level of participant adherence. Purpose The aim of this study is to evaluate adherence to a daily symptom survey and a wearable device (Oura Ring) among healthcare professionals (attending physicians and other clinical staff) and trainees (residents and medical students) in a hospital setting during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods In this mixed-methods observational study, the data were a subset (N=91) of those collected as part of the larger TemPredict Study. Demographic data analyses were conducted with descriptive statistics. Participant adherence to the wearable device protocol was reported as the percentage of days that sleep was recorded, and adherence to the daily survey was reported as the percentage of days with submitted surveys. Comparisons for the primary (wearable and survey adherence of groups) and secondary (adherence patterns among subgroups) outcomes were conducted using descriptive statistics, two-tailed independent t-tests, and Welch's ANOVA with post hoc analysis using Games-Howell. Results Wearable device adherence was significantly higher than the daily symptom survey adherence for most participants. Overall, participants were highly adherent to the wearable device, wearing the device an average of 87.8 ± 11.6% of study nights compared to survey submission, showing an average of 63.8 ± 27.4% of study days. In subgroup analysis, we found that healthcare professionals (HCPs) and medical students had the highest adherence to wearing the wearable device, while medical residents had lower adherence in both wearable adherence and daily symptom survey adherence. Conclusions These results indicated high participant adherence to wearable devices to monitor for impending infection in the course of a research study conducted as part of clinical practice. Subgroup analysis indicated HCPs and medical students maintained high adherence, but residents' adherence was lower, which is likely multifactorial, with differences in work demands and stress contributing to the findings. These results can guide the development of adherence strategies for a wearable device to increase the quality of data collection and assist in disease detection in this and future pandemics.

Comparison and agreement between device-estimated and self-reported sleep periods in adults.

OBJECTIVES: Discriminating sleep period from accelerometer data remains a challenge despite many studies have adapted 24-h measurement protocols. We aimed to compare and examine the agreement among device-estimated and self-reported bedtime, wake-up time, and sleep periods in a sample of adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants (108 adults, 61 females) with an average age of 33.1 (SD 0.4) were asked to wear two wearable devices (Polar Active and Oura ring) simultaneously and record their bedtime and wake up time using a sleep diary. Sleep periods from Polar Active were detected using an in-lab algorithm, which is openly available. Sleep periods from Oura ring were generated by commercial Oura system. Scatter plots, Bland-Altman plots, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to evaluate the agreement between the methods. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficient values were above 0.81 for bedtimes and wake-up times between the three methods. In the estimation of sleep period, ICCs ranged from 0.67 (Polar Active vs. sleep diary) to 0.76 (Polar Active vs. Oura ring). Average difference between Polar Active and Oura ring was -1.8 min for bedtimes and -2.6 min for wake-up times. Corresponding values between Polar Active and sleep diary were -5.4 and -18.9 min, and between Oura ring and sleep diary -3.6 min and -16.2 min, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results showed a high agreement between Polar Active activity monitor and Oura ring for sleep period estimation. There was a moderate agreement between self-report and the two devices in estimating bedtime and wake-up time. These findings suggest that potentially wearable devices can be interchangeably used to detect sleep period, but their accuracy remains limited.Key MessagesEstimation of sleep period from different devices could be comparable.Difference between sleep periods from monitors and sleep diary are under 20 min.Device-based estimation of sleep period is encouraged in population-based studies.