跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT07822828
NCT07822828尚未招募不适用

A Mechanism Randomised Controlled Trial of a Three-Agent LLM-Augmented mHealth Intervention for Late-Life Loneliness in Older Adults

The University of Hong Kong0 个研究点目标入组 72 人开始时间: 2026年9月21日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
尚未招募
入组人数
72
主要终点
Session-level perceived responsiveness (primary mediator)

研究概览

简要总结

This study examines how a smartphone conversational application affects feelings of loneliness in Cantonese-speaking older adults living in Hong Kong. Seventy-two adults aged 60 or above who report at least moderate loneliness will be randomly assigned to one of two versions of the same application. Both versions look and work the same way, offer the same three conversational companions, and provide the same set of in-app tools. The two versions differ only in how the companions' replies are produced: in one version replies are generated by a large language model, and in the other they are assembled from pre-written templates selected by keyword and conversation state. Participants use the application for four weeks and are then followed for a further four weeks with continued access. The main question is whether any difference between the two versions in emotional loneliness operates through how understood, validated and cared for participants feel during individual conversations. Participants are not told which version they are using, and the researcher who carries out the assessments is also unaware of the assignment.

详细描述

Loneliness in later life is associated with adverse physical and mental health outcomes. Conversational applications based on large language models have been proposed as a scalable form of support, but most published evaluations remain at the pilot feasibility stage, and few have used a comparator that holds interface richness, attention, and novelty constant. Without such a comparator, any observed benefit cannot be attributed to the language model rather than to the surrounding experience.

This trial addresses that gap using an architecturally matched comparator. Both arms deliver the identical mobile application: the same visual interface, navigation, three named conversational companions, tool layer, and in-app assessment prompts. The sole difference is the backend that generates companion response content. In the Hybrid arm, responses are generated by a large language model using each companion's system prompt, conversation history, and user input, and the arm exhibits language-model-distinctive conversational behaviours including anchoring on specific content, cross-session memory, explicit admission of unfamiliarity, mixed-content routing, and generative summarisation. In the Rule-based arm, responses are produced by a template system driven by keyword matching and conversational state, without cross-session memory and without those behaviours; conversational content in this arm is not transmitted to any external service.

Seventy-two community-dwelling Cantonese-speaking adults aged 60 or above who score at least 2 on the De Jong Gierveld Emotional and Social Loneliness Scale are allocated 1:1, stratified by baseline emotional loneliness using permuted blocks within stratum, with allocation concealment. A designated staff member performs randomisation and onboarding and does not collect outcome data. The Principal Investigator conducts all in-person assessments while unaware of allocation. Participants are not informed which version they use and are debriefed at study completion.

The intervention period is four weeks, followed by four weeks of follow-up with continued application access and continuous usage logging. The primary analysis is a longitudinal 1-1-1 multilevel mediation model with arm as the between-person predictor, session-level perceived responsiveness as the within-person mediator, and emotional loneliness as the outcome; the indirect effect is tested using Monte Carlo confidence intervals. The study is powered for the indirect effect rather than for confirmatory testing of the between-arm main effect, which is reported as an effect estimate with a 95% confidence interval. A falsifiable specification of the proposed mechanism is that an arm advantage appears on emotional loneliness but not on social loneliness.

A three-layer safety architecture operates in both arms: a Cantonese-calibrated distress detector that surfaces Hong Kong crisis resources in real time and alerts the research team; a daily 100% audit of Thought Exercise events against pre-specified scope criteria; and weekly Principal Investigator review of all flags and audits. Pre-specified pause criteria are an intervention-related serious adverse event, boundary-crossed events exceeding 10%, or distress detector recall below 0.90 on a real Cantonese corpus.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Basic Science
盲法
Double (Participant, Outcomes Assessor)

盲法说明

Participants are not informed which version of the application they receive; both arms are presented identically as a conversational support application under evaluation. The Principal Investigator, who administers all in-person outcome assessments, is not informed of allocation. The staff member who performs randomisation and onboarding is necessarily unmasked but collects no outcome data. The analyst is masked while preparing the efficacy analysis dataset and unmasked for mechanism analyses, in which arm assignment is the predictor of interest. Assessor masking may be partially compromised during qualitative interviews when participants describe application behaviour; this is monitored and reported.

入排标准

年龄范围
60 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • Aged 60 years or above
  • Self-identified Cantonese as primary language of communication
  • Community-dwelling in Hong Kong (not in residential care)
  • De Jong Gierveld Emotional and Social Loneliness Scale total score of 2 or above at screening, indicating at least moderate loneliness
  • Owns a smartphone, or willing to use a study-provided device
  • Able to demonstrate understanding of the study using the teach-back method
  • Willing to provide written informed consent

排除标准

  • Acute suicidality, defined as a PHQ-9 item 9 score above 1 with reported active intent
  • Currently receiving formal psychiatric treatment
  • Severe hearing or visual impairment precluding application use even with accommodation
  • Self-reported diagnosis of dementia or significant cognitive impairment
  • Unable to demonstrate understanding of the study using the teach-back method
  • Prior participation in the feasibility phase of this research programme

研究组 & 干预措施

Hybrid arm (LLM-driven)

Experimental

Participants receive the mobile application with companion responses generated by a large language model backend, using each companion's system prompt, conversation history, and user input. Language-model-distinctive conversational behaviours (content anchoring, cross-session memory, admission of unfamiliarity, mixed-content routing, generative summarisation) are operationally present. Recommended use is at least three sessions per week over four weeks; actual use is at the participant's discretion and is logged.

干预措施: Hybrid conversational companion application (Behavioral)

Rule-based arm (template-driven)

Active Comparator

Participants receive an application identical in interface, navigation, companion personae, tool layer, and in-app assessment prompts, with companion responses produced by a template system driven by keyword matching and conversational state. Cross-session memory and the language-model-distinctive behaviours are absent. Conversational content is not transmitted externally. Recommended use and logging are identical to the Hybrid arm.

干预措施: Rule-based conversational companion application (Behavioral)

结局指标

主要结局

Session-level perceived responsiveness (primary mediator)

时间窗: After each conversation session, Weeks 1 through 4

Brief perceived-responsiveness measure administered in-app immediately after each companion conversation. Single-item sliders scored 1-7 covering Understanding, Validation, Caring and Insensitivity. Higher scores indicate greater perceived responsiveness. This is the within-person mediator in the pre-specified primary mediation model, not an efficacy endpoint.

Change in emotional loneliness (De Jong Gierveld emotional subscale)

时间窗: Baseline (Week 0) and Week 4

De Jong Gierveld Emotional and Social Loneliness Scale, 3-item emotional subscale. Score range 0-3; higher scores indicate greater emotional loneliness. Change from baseline to Week 4. This is the outcome variable in the pre-specified primary mediation model. The trial is powered for the indirect effect via session-level perceived responsiveness and is not powered for confirmatory testing of the between-arm difference, which is reported as an effect estimate with a 95% confidence interval.

次要结局

未报告次要终点

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Sponsor

相似试验