Skip to content

Just-in-Time Coping Prompts for Reactive Digital Behavior in College Students

REACT: A Just-in-Time Adaptive Intervention to Reduce Reactive Digital Behavior in College Students

Status
Not yet recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07789314
Acronym
REACT
Enrollment
80
Registered
2026-08-27
Start date
2026-09-01
Completion date
2027-08-01
Last updated
2026-08-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Aggression, Alcohol Drinking in College, Emotional Eating, Emotional Regulation

Keywords

just-in-time adaptive intervention, micro-randomized trial, ecological momentary assessment, wearable sensor, emotional volatility, college students

Brief summary

This study looks at the moments when college students feel a strong emotional swing, and how those moments relate to reacting online when upset, drinking alcohol, and eating in response to emotions. Participants wear a wrist device and answer brief check-ins on their phone several times a day for about five weeks. During part of that time, a study app sometimes sends a short coping message at moments when the wrist device and check-ins suggest emotions are shifting quickly. Whether a message is sent at any given moment is decided at random, and the study compares what participants do in the short window afterward. The study is a pilot designed to test whether the approach is feasible and to estimate how large its effects are.

Detailed description

REACT is a five-week micro-randomized trial in University of Florida students age 18 and older. Participants complete a baseline battery, wear a Garmin Venu 3, and respond to five to six smartphone check-ins per day. Week one is a no-prompt run-in that establishes each participant's own baseline distribution of momentary affective variability, indexed by the mean square of successive differences on consecutive affect ratings. From week two through week five, the app evaluates up to six decision points per day. A decision point is flagged when the participant's current variability exceeds their own 80th percentile threshold, computed within person rather than against a group average. At each available decision point the app randomizes with probability 0.5 whether to deliver a brief coping message, and if so selects a message type from those eligible in that context. Availability rules exclude sleep, stale device data, a 60-minute cooldown, a daily cap, and any safety override. Proximal outcomes are drawn from the first check-in within two hours after the decision point. Analysis uses weighted and centered least squares to estimate causal excursion effects, with pre-specified moderators.

Interventions

A single short message of one to three sentences delivered to the participant's smartphone at a randomized decision point, taking roughly fifteen to thirty seconds to read. Messages apply cognitive-behavioral techniques including thought records, perspective-taking, decatastrophizing, cost-benefit checks, implementation intentions, and behavioral redirection, or acceptance-based techniques including cognitive defusion, acceptance, values anchoring, urge surfing, and present-moment grounding. Delivery is capped at four messages per day with a minimum sixty-minute interval and is confined to participant-set waking hours. Messages may be dismissed without responding.

A brief neutral acknowledgment message matched to the coping messages on delivery mechanism and approximate length, containing no coping technique or behavioral suggestion.

Sponsors

University of Florida
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Micro-randomized trial. Each participant is repeatedly randomized at decision points across four weeks, so every participant contributes observations under both conditions rather than being assigned to a single group for the duration. At each available decision point, randomization with probability 0.5 determines whether a coping message is delivered; when a message is delivered, its type is selected at random from those eligible in that context. Approximately one hundred available randomized decision points are expected per participant. Crossover assignment is selected because it is the closest available model to a within-person repeated randomization design.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 89 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Currently enrolled University of Florida student * Age 18 years or older * Owns a smartphone used daily * Willing to wear a wrist-worn device and complete brief check-ins several times daily for approximately five weeks

Exclusion criteria

* Varsity student-athlete governed by the university athletic association * Unable to complete study procedures in English

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Momentary urge to post or reply reactively, score on a 7-point scale.Within 2 hours after each randomized decision point, across weeks 2 to 5.Self-reported urge to post or reply about something upsetting, rated 1 to 7 at the first check-in within two hours after a randomized decision point. Higher scores indicate greater urge. Analyzed as a causal excursion effect comparing decision points at which a coping message was delivered with those at which it was not.
Momentary urge to drink alcohol, score on a 7-point scale.Within 2 hours after each randomized decision point, across weeks 2 to 5.Self-reported current urge to drink alcohol, rated 1 to 7 at the first check-in within two hours after a randomized decision point. Higher scores indicate greater urge. Analyzed as a causal excursion effect.
Momentary emotional influence on eating, score on a 7-point scale.Within 2 hours after each randomized decision point, across weeks 2 to 5.Self-reported rating of how much emotions influenced eating since the previous check-in, rated 1 to 7 at the first check-in within two hours after a randomized decision point. Analyzed as a causal excursion effect.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Momentary reactive online behavior since the previous check-in, self-reported occurrenceWithin 2 hours after each randomized decision point, across weeks 2 to 5.Self-reported occurrence of posting or replying while upset since the previous check-in, reported yes or no at the first check-in within two hours after a randomized decision point.
Number of standard drinks consumed since the previous check-in, self-reported countWithin 2 hours after each randomized decision point, across weeks 2 to 5.Self-reported number of standard drinks consumed since the previous check-in.
Loss-of-control eating rating, score on a 7-point scaleWithin 2 hours after each randomized decision point, across weeks 2 to 5Self-reported sense of losing control while eating since the previous check-in, rated 1 to 7.
Proportion of scheduled check-ins completedThrough study completion, approximately 5 weeks per participant.Number of completed check-ins divided by number of scheduled check-ins. Pre-registered feasibility benchmark is 75 percent.
Proportion of delivered prompts receiving a responseThrough study completion, approximately 5 weeks per participant.Number of prompts receiving a rating response divided by number of prompts delivered. Pre-registered benchmark is 60 percent.
Proportion of waking hours with valid wearable dataThrough study completion, approximately 5 weeks per participant.Hours of valid physiological data divided by estimated waking hours. Pre-registered benchmark is 80 percent.
Proportion of enrolled participants retained to study end.Through study completion, approximately 5 weeks per participant.Number of participants completing the study divided by number enrolled. Pre-registered benchmark is 85 percent.
Prompt helpfulness rating, score on a 7-point scaleWeek 3 and end of study, approximately week 5.Participant rating of how helpful the coping prompts were, rated 1 to 7.
System Usability Scale total score.End of study, approximately week 5.System Usability Scale (Brooke, 1996) total score, range 0 to 100, higher scores indicating better usability.

Countries

United States

Contacts

CONTACTYonghwan Chang, PhD
yhchang@ufl.edu352-294-1664
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORYonghwan Chang, PhD

University of Florida

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Aug 28, 2026