Clinician Perspectives and Design Implications in Using Patient-Generated Health Data to Improve Mental Health Practices: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-generated health data (PGHD) have been largely collected through mobile health (mHealth) apps and wearable devices. PGHD can be especially helpful in mental health, as patients' illness history and symptom narratives are vital to developing diagnoses and treatment plans. However, the extent to which clinicians use mental health-related PGHD is unknown. OBJECTIVE: A mixed methods study was conducted to understand clinicians' perspectives on PGHD and current mental health apps. This approach uses information gathered from semistructured interviews, workflow analysis, and user-written mental health app reviews to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the current workflow of mental health practice and how are PGHD integrated into this workflow, (2) what are clinicians' perspectives on PGHD and how do they choose mobile apps for their patients, (3) and what are the features of current mobile apps in terms of interpreting and sharing PGHD? METHODS: The study consists of semistructured interviews with 12 psychiatrists and clinical psychologists from a large academic hospital. These interviews were thematically and qualitatively analyzed for common themes and workflow elements. User-posted reviews of 56 sleep and mood tracking apps were analyzed to understand app features in comparison with the information gathered from interviews. RESULTS: The results showed that PGHD have been part of the workflow, but its integration and use are not optimized. Mental health clinicians supported the use of PGHD but had concerns regarding data reliability and accuracy. They also identified challenges in selecting suitable apps for their patients. From the app review, it was discovered that mHealth apps had limited features to support personalization and collaborative care as well as data interpretation and sharing. CONCLUSIONS: This study investigates clinicians' perspectives on PGHD use and explored existing app features using the app review data in the mental health setting. A total of 3 design guidelines were generated: (1) improve data interpretation and sharing mechanisms, (2) consider clinical workflow and electronic health record integration, and (3) support personalized and collaborative care. More research is needed to demonstrate the best practices of PGHD use and to evaluate their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes.
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 | 0.278 | 0.281 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".