MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622683509 · doi:10.1037/prj0000270

Online and mobile technologies for self-management in bipolar disorder: A systematic review.

2017· review· en· W2622683509 on OpenAlexaff
Emma Gliddon, Steven J. Barnes, Greg Murray, Erin E. Michalak

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Rehabilitation Journal · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAustralian Rotary Health
KeywordseHealthmHealthCINAHLPsycINFOSelf-managementPsychological interventionTelemedicineBipolar disorderMedicineMEDLINEPsychologyComputer scienceNursingClinical psychologyHealth careMoodPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Internet (eHealth) and smartphone-based (mHealth) approaches to self-management for bipolar disorder are increasingly common. Evidence-based self-management strategies are available for bipolar disorder and provide a useful framework for reviewing existing eHealth/mHealth programs to determine whether these strategies are supported by current technologies. This review assesses which self-management strategies are most supported by technology. METHOD: Based on 3 previous studies, 7 categories of self-management strategies related to bipolar disorder were identified, followed by a systematic literature review to identify existing eHealth and mHealth programs for this disorder. Searches were conducted by using PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant peer-reviewed articles published January 2005 to May 2015. eHealth and mHealth programs were summarized and reviewed to identify which of the 7 self-management strategy categories were supported by eHealth or mHealth programs. RESULTS: From 1,654 publications, 15 papers were identified for inclusion. From these, 9 eHealth programs and 2 mHealth programs were identified. The most commonly supported self-management strategy categories were "ongoing monitoring," "maintaining hope," "education," and "planning for and taking action"; the least commonly supported categories were "relaxation" and "maintaining a healthy lifestyle." eHealth programs appear to provide more comprehensive coverage of self-management strategies compared with mHealth programs. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both eHealth and mHealth programs present a wide range of self-management strategies for bipolar disorder, although individuals seeking comprehensive interventions might be best served by eHealth programs, while those seeking more condensed and direct interventions might prefer mHealth programs. (PsycINFO Database Record

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric Rehabilitation JournalSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207