Smartphone Ownership and Interest in Mobile Applications to Monitor Symptoms of Mental Health Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient retrospective recollection is a mainstay of assessing symptoms in mental health and psychiatry. However, evidence suggests that these retrospective recollections may not be as accurate as data collection though the experience sampling method (ESM), which captures patient data in "real time" and "real life." However, the difficulties in practical implementation of ESM data collection have limited its impact in psychiatry and mental health. Smartphones with the capability to run mobile applications may offer a novel method of collecting ESM data that may represent a practical and feasible tool for mental health and psychiatry. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to provide data on psychiatric patients' prevalence of smartphone ownership, patterns of use, and interest in utilizing mobile applications to monitor their mental health conditions. METHODS: One hundred psychiatric outpatients at a large urban teaching hospital completed a paper-and-pencil survey regarding smartphone ownership, use, and interest in utilizing mobile applications to monitor their mental health condition. RESULTS: Ninety-seven percent of patients reported owning a phone and 72% reported that their phone was a smartphone. Patients in all age groups indicated greater than 50% interest in using a mobile application on a daily basis to monitor their mental health condition. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone and mobile applications represent a practical opportunity to explore new modalities of monitoring, treatment, and research of psychiatric and mental health conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".