Understanding the Subjective Experience of Long-term Remote Measurement Technology Use for Symptom Tracking in People With Depression: Multisite Longitudinal Qualitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remote measurement technologies (RMTs) have the potential to revolutionize major depressive disorder (MDD) disease management by offering the ability to assess, monitor, and predict symptom changes. However, the promise of RMT data depends heavily on sustained user engagement over extended periods. In this paper, we report a longitudinal qualitative study of the subjective experience of people with MDD engaging with RMTs to provide insight into system usability and user experience and to provide the basis for future promotion of RMT use in research and clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand the subjective experience of long-term engagement with RMTs using qualitative data collected in a longitudinal study of RMTs for monitoring MDD. The objectives were to explore the key themes associated with long-term RMT use and to identify recommendations for future system engagement. METHODS: In this multisite, longitudinal qualitative research study, 124 semistructured interviews were conducted with 99 participants across the United Kingdom, Spain, and the Netherlands at 3-month, 12-month, and 24-month time points during a study exploring RMT use (the Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse-Major Depressive Disorder study). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, and interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded in the native language, with the resulting quotes translated into English. RESULTS: There were 5 main themes regarding the subjective experience of long-term RMT use: research-related factors, the utility of RMTs for self-management, technology-related factors, clinical factors, and system amendments and additions. CONCLUSIONS: The subjective experience of long-term RMT use can be considered from 2 main perspectives: experiential factors (how participants construct their experience of engaging with RMTs) and system-related factors (direct engagement with the technologies). A set of recommendations based on these strands are proposed for both future research and the real-world implementation of RMTs into clinical practice. Future exploration of experiential engagement with RMTs will be key to the successful use of RMTs in clinical care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".