Leveraging Mobile Health to Manage Mental Health/Behavioral Health Disorders: Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health is a complex condition, highly related to emotion. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant spike in depression (from isolation) and anxiety (event related). Mobile Health (mHealth) and telemedicine offer solutions to augment patient care, provide education, improve symptoms of depression, and assuage fears and anxiety. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to assess the effectiveness of mHealth to provide mental health care by analyzing articles published in the last year in peer-reviewed, academic journals using strong methodology (randomized controlled trial). METHODS: We queried 4 databases (PubMed, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], Web of Science, and ScienceDirect) using a standard Boolean search string. We conducted this systematic literature review in accordance with the Kruse protocol and reported it in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 checklist (n=33). RESULTS: A total of 4 interventions (mostly mHealth) from 14 countries identified improvements in primary outcomes of depression and anxiety as well as in several secondary outcomes, namely, quality of life, mental well-being, cognitive flexibility, distress, sleep, self-efficacy, anger, decision conflict, decision regret, digestive disturbance, pain, and medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth interventions can provide education, treatment augmentation, and serve as the primary modality in mental health care. The mHealth modality should be carefully considered when evaluating modes of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022343489; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=343489.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".