MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318000223 · doi:10.2196/42403

The Role of Compassionate Technology in Blended and Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Scoping Review

2023· article· en· W4318000223 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charlotte M. van Lotringen, Benedetta Lusi, Gerben J. Westerhof, Geke Ludden, Hanneke Kip, Saskia M. Kelders, Matthijs L. Noordzij

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsPsychological interventionMental healthPsychologyDigital healthPsychotherapistHealth carePolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: An essential value in mental health care is compassion: awareness of suffering, tolerating difficult feelings in the face of suffering, and acting or being motivated to alleviate suffering. Currently, technologies for mental health care are on the rise and could offer several advantages, such as more options for self-management by clients and more accessible and economically viable care. However, digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) have not been widely implemented in daily practice. Developing and evaluating DMHIs around important mental health care values, such as compassion, could be key for a better integration of technology in the mental health care context. OBJECTIVE: This systematic scoping review explored the literature for previous instances where technology for mental health care has been linked to compassion or empathy to investigate how DMHIs can support compassion in mental health care. METHODS: Searches were conducted in the PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, and screening by 2 reviewers resulted in 33 included articles. From these articles, we extracted the following data: technology types, goals, target groups, and roles of the technologies in the intervention; study designs; outcome measures; and the extent to which the technologies met a 5-step proposed definition of compassion. RESULTS: We found 3 main ways in which technology can contribute to compassion in mental health care: by showing compassion to people, by enhancing self-compassion in people, or by facilitating compassion between people. However, none of the included technologies met all 5 elements of compassion nor were they evaluated in terms of compassion. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss the potential of compassionate technology, its challenges, and the need to evaluate technology for mental health care on compassion. Our findings could contribute to the development of compassionate technology, in which elements of compassion are explicitly embedded in its design, use, and evaluation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0170.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.415 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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