Psychiatry Outpatients’ Willingness to Share Social Media Posts and Smartphone Data for Research and Clinical Purposes: Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychiatry research has begun to leverage data collected from patients' social media and smartphone use. However, information regarding the feasibility of utilizing such data in an outpatient setting and the acceptability of such data in research and practice is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at understanding the outpatients' willingness to have information from their social media posts and their smartphones used for clinical or research purposes. METHODS: In this survey study, we surveyed patients (N=238) in an outpatient clinic waiting room. Willingness to share social media and passive smartphone data was summarized for the sample as a whole and broken down by sex, age, and race. RESULTS: Most patients who had a social media account and who were receiving talk therapy treatment (74.4%, 99/133) indicated that they would be willing to share their social media posts with their therapists. The percentage of patients willing to share passive smartphone data with researchers varied from 40.8% (82/201) to 60.7% (122/201) depending on the parameter, with sleep duration being the parameter with the highest percentage of patients willing to share. A total of 30.4% of patients indicated that media stories of social media privacy breaches made them more hesitant about sharing passive smartphone data with researchers. Sex and race were associated with willingness to share smartphone data, with men and whites being the most willing to share. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that most patients in a psychiatric outpatient setting would share social media and passive smartphone data and that further research elucidating patterns of willingness to share passive data is needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".