Does a Mobile Phone Depression-Screening App Motivate Mobile Phone Users With High Depressive Symptoms to Seek a Health Care Professional’s Help?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of disease screening is to encourage high-risk subjects to seek health care diagnosis and treatment. Mobile phone apps can effectively screen mental health conditions, including depression. However, it is not known how effective such screening methods are in motivating users to discuss the obtained results of such apps with health care professionals. Does a mobile phone depression-screening app motivate users with high depressive symptoms to seek health care professional advice? This study aimed to address this question. METHOD: This was a single-cohort, prospective, observational study of a free mobile phone depression app developed in English and released on Apple's App Store. Apple App Store users (aged 18 or above) in 5 countries, that is, Australia, Canada, New Zealand (NZ), the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), were recruited directly via the app's download page. The participants then completed the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and their depression screening score was displayed to them. If their score was 11 or above and they had never been diagnosed with depression before, they were advised to take their results to their health care professional. They were to follow up after 1 month. RESULTS: A group of 2538 participants from the 5 countries completed PHQ-9 depression screening with the app. Of them, 322 participants were found to have high depressive symptoms and had never been diagnosed with depression, and received advice to discuss their results with health care professionals. About 74% of those completed the follow-up; approximately 38% of these self-reported consulting their health care professionals about their depression score. Only positive attitude toward depression as a real disease was associated with increased follow-up response rate (odds ratio (OR) 3.2, CI 1.38-8.29). CONCLUSIONS: A mobile phone depression-screening app motivated some users to seek a depression diagnosis. However, further study should investigate how other app users use the screening results provided by such apps.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".