Leveraging mHealth Technologies for Public Health (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNSTRUCTURED Traditional public health surveillance efforts are generally based on self-reported data. Although well validated, these methods may nevertheless be subjected to limitations such as biases, delays, and costs or logistical challenges. An alternative is the use of smart technologies (eg, smartphones and smartwatches) to complement self-report indicators. Having embedded sensors that provide zero-effort, passive, and continuous monitoring of health variables, these devices generate data that could be leveraged for cases in which the data are related to the same self-report metric of interest. However, some challenges must be considered when discussing the use of mobile health technologies for public health to ensure digital health equity, privacy, and best practices. This paper provides, through a review of major Canadian surveys and mobile health studies, an overview of research involving mobile data for public health, including a mapping of variables currently collected by public health surveys that could be complemented with self-report, challenges to technology adoption, and considerations on digital health equity, with a specific focus on the Canadian context. Population characteristics from major smart technology brands—Apple, Fitbit, and Samsung—and demographic barriers to the use of technology are provided. We conclude with public health implications and present our view that public health agencies and researchers should leverage mobile health data while being mindful of the current barriers and limitations to device use and access. In this manner, data ecosystems that leverage personal smart devices for public health can be put in place as appropriate, as we move toward a future in which barriers to technology adoption are decreasing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.016 |
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".