Smartphone‐based interventions in bipolar disorder: Systematic review and meta‐analyses of efficacy. A position paper from the International Society for Bipolar Disorders (<scp>ISBD</scp>) Big Data Task Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical effects of smartphone-based interventions for bipolar disorder (BD) have yet to be established. OBJECTIVES: To examine the efficacy of smartphone-based interventions in BD and how the included studies reported user-engagement indicators. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search on January 24, 2022, in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science. We used random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the standardized difference (Hedges' g) in pre-post change scores between smartphone intervention and control conditions. The study was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021226668). RESULTS: The literature search identified 6034 studies. Thirteen articles fulfilled the selection criteria. We included seven RCTs and performed meta-analyses comparing the pre-post change in depressive and (hypo)manic symptom severity, functioning, quality of life, and perceived stress between smartphone interventions and control conditions. There was significant heterogeneity among studies and no meta-analysis reached statistical significance. Results were also inconclusive regarding affective relapses and psychiatric readmissions. All studies reported positive user-engagement indicators. CONCLUSION: We did not find evidence to support that smartphone interventions may reduce the severity of depressive or manic symptoms in BD. The high heterogeneity of studies supports the need for expert consensus to establish ideally how studies should be designed and the use of more sensitive outcomes, such as affective relapses and psychiatric hospitalizations, as well as the quantification of mood instability. The ISBD Big Data Task Force provides preliminary recommendations to reduce the heterogeneity and achieve more valid evidence in the field.
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 | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".