MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312603136 · doi:10.2196/42501

Identifying and Categorizing Adverse Events in Trials of Digital Mental Health Interventions: Narrative Scoping Review of Trials in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry

2022· article· en· W4312603136 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aislinn Bergin, Althea Valentine, Stefan Rennick‐Egglestone, Mike Slade, Chris Hollis, Charlotte L Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research CentreArts and Humanities Research CouncilEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialMedicineMental healthConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsClinical trialDigital healthPsychiatryHealth carePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To contextualize the benefits of an intervention, it is important that adverse events (AEs) are reported. This is potentially difficult in trials of digital mental health interventions, where delivery may be remote and the mechanisms of actions less understood. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the reporting of AEs in randomized controlled trials of digital mental health interventions. METHODS: The International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number database was searched for trials registered before May 2022. Using advanced search filters, we identified 2546 trials in the category of mental and behavioral disorders. These trials were independently reviewed by 2 researchers against the eligibility criteria. Trials were included where digital mental health interventions for participants with a mental health disorder were evaluated through a completed randomized controlled trial (protocol and primary results publication published). Published protocols and primary results publications were then retrieved. Data were extracted independently by 3 researchers, with discussion to reach consensus when required. RESULTS: Twenty-three trials met the eligibility criteria, of which 16 (69%) included a statement on AEs within a publication, but only 6 (26%) reported AEs within their primary results publication. Seriousness was referred to by 6 trials, relatedness by 4, and expectedness by 2. More interventions delivered with human support (9/11, 82%) than those with only remote or no support (6/12, 50%) included a statement on AEs, but they did not report more AEs. Several reasons for participant dropout were identified by trials that did not report AEs, of which some were identifiable or related to AEs, including serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in the reporting of AEs in trials of digital mental health interventions. This variation may reflect limited reporting processes and difficulty recognizing AEs related to digital mental health interventions. There is a need to develop guidelines specifically for these trials to improve future reporting.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.401 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207