Data Visualization for Chronic Neurological and Mental Health Condition Self-management: Systematic Review of User Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remote measurement technologies (RMT) such as mobile health devices and apps are increasingly used by those living with chronic neurological and mental health conditions. RMT enables real-world data collection and regular feedback, providing users with insights about their own conditions. Data visualizations are an integral part of RMT, although little is known about visualization design preferences from the perspectives of those living with chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to explore the experiences and preferences of individuals with chronic neurological and mental health conditions on data visualizations derived from RMT to manage health. METHODS: In this systematic review, we searched peer-reviewed literature and conference proceedings (PubMed, IEEE Xplore, EMBASE, Web of Science, Association for Computing Machinery Computer-Human Interface proceedings, and the Cochrane Library) for original papers published between January 2007 and September 2021 that reported perspectives on data visualization of people living with chronic neurological and mental health conditions. Two reviewers independently screened each abstract and full-text article, with disagreements resolved through discussion. Studies were critically appraised, and extracted data underwent thematic synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 35 eligible publications from 31 studies representing 12 conditions. Coded data coalesced into 3 themes: desire for data visualization, impact of visualizations on condition management, and visualization design considerations. Data visualizations were viewed as an integral part of users' experiences with RMT, impacting satisfaction and engagement. However, user preferences were diverse and often conflicting both between and within conditions. CONCLUSIONS: When used effectively, data visualizations are valuable, engaging components of RMT. They can provide structure and insight, allowing individuals to manage their own health more effectively. However, visualizations are not "one-size-fits-all," and it is important to engage with potential users during visualization design to understand when, how, and with whom the visualizations will be used to manage health.
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 | 0.047 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".