Patient Willingness to Consent to Mobile Phone Data Collection for Mental Health Apps: Structured Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has become possible to use data from a patient's mobile phone as an adjunct or alternative to the traditional self-report and interview methods of symptom assessment in psychiatry. Mobile data-based assessment is possible because of the large amounts of diverse information available from a modern mobile phone, including geolocation, screen activity, physical motion, and communication activity. This data may offer much more fine-grained insight into mental state than traditional methods, and so we are motivated to pursue research in this direction. However, passive data retrieval could be an unwelcome invasion of privacy, and some may not consent to such observation. It is therefore important to measure patients' willingness to consent to such observation if this approach is to be considered for general use. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the ownership rates of mobile phones within the patient population, measure the patient population's willingness to have their mobile phone used as an experimental assessment tool for their mental health disorder, and, finally, to determine how likely patients would be to provide consent for each individual source of mobile phone-collectible data across the variety of potential data sources. METHODS: New patients referred to a tertiary care mood and anxiety disorder clinic from August 2016 to October 2017 completed a survey designed to measure their mobile phone ownership, use, and willingness to install a mental health monitoring app and provide relevant data through the app. RESULTS: Of the 82 respondents, 70 (85%) reported owning an internet-connected mobile phone. When asked about installing a hypothetical mobile phone app to assess their mental health disorder, 41% (33/80) responded with complete willingness to install with another 43% (34/80) indicating potential willingness to install such an app. Willingness to give permissions for specific types of data varied by data source, with respondents least willing to consent to audio recording and analysis (19% [15/80] willing respondents, 31% [25/80] potentially willing) and most willing to consent to observation of the mobile phone screen being on or off (46% [36/79] willing respondents and 23% [18/79] potentially willing). CONCLUSIONS: The patients surveyed had a high incidence of ownership of internet-connected mobile phones, which suggests some plausibility for the general approach of mental health state inference through mobile phone data. Patients were also relatively willing to consent to data collection from sources that were less personal but expressed less willingness for the most personal communication and location data.
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".