MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4410640505 · doi:10.2196/69358

Technology Effects and Child Health: Wellness Impact and Social Effects (TECHWISE): Protocol for a Prospective, Observational, Real-World Study

2025· article· en· W4410640505 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Scott H. Kollins, Jessica Flannery, Karen Goetz, Samir Akre

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésObservational studyPreprintPsychologyGerontologyMedicineEnvironmental healthComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There has been controversy over the extent to which technology use in general-and social media exposure specifically-may be associated with adverse youth mental health outcomes. To date, studies have generally been small and exploratory, relying on youth self-reports to characterize technology and social media use patterns. The goal of this study is to explore the associations between objectively collected data, gathered through a commercially available app, and youth mental health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The broad goal of this study is to characterize the association between objectively measured technology/social media use and a range of mental health-related outcomes. Three specific aims will be initially addressed. First, we aim to quantify the association between objectively measured smartphone use and measures of well-being. Second, we aim to differentiate types of engagement-specifically, the types of content consumed versus the overall time spent on the device-and examine their association with outcomes. Third, we aim to identify moderating factors, such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status, that might influence these relationships. A secondary broad objective of this research is to establish a freely available data resource that can be accessed by qualified investigators to address a much wider range of questions in the future. METHODS: Up to 1000 male, female, and nonbinary youth aged 8-17 years (inclusive), along with their primary caregivers, will be enrolled in the study. Youth participants must have their own dedicated iOS- or Android-based smartphone or tablet, and both they and their parents must be willing and able to download and install the data collection app on their devices. The study is open to all US-based participants who meet these 2 criteria. Following electronic consent (eConsent), participants and their caregivers will complete a range of baseline measures electronically, including assessments of psychiatric and social functioning, as well as measures of loneliness, digital stress, and disordered eating. Caregivers will be asked to provide information on the participant's health and mental health history. Youth and caregivers will then complete a similar battery of assessments 1, 2, and 3 months after baseline. Youth participants will also respond to daily questions about their mood, stress, physical activity, and sleep. Both youth and their caregivers will be compensated for completing measures at each time point. The data collection app gathers a wide range of daily data from the participant's device, including temporal patterns of use, the number and frequency of various app usage, social interactions within apps, and keystroke data. A variety of analytic methods will be used to address key questions related to how technology and social media use are associated with mental health and wellness outcomes. RESULTS: Enrollment for this study began on November 13, 2024. As of May 20, 2025, a total of 106 participants and their caregivers had consented to participate and provided baseline data. An additional 203 children and parents have consented and are currently undergoing eligibility verification and enrollment. Initial data analysis is anticipated to begin in late autumn 2025 or winter 2026, with the expected publication of initial findings in spring 2026. CONCLUSIONS: This study will be among the largest to date to collect both objective device usage data and validated, clinically relevant outcome measures. In accordance with our data-sharing policies, any qualified investigator will be able to access the study data, provided appropriate steps are followed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06664944; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06664944. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/69358.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,027
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Protocole · Signal consensuel: Protocole
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,042
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,140

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0270,020
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,003
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,002
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0420,010

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,162
Tête enseignante GPT0,597
Écart entre enseignants0,435 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreProtocole

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Research ProtocolsMême sujetImpact of Technology on AdolescentsTravaux en français237 207