MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380632941 · doi:10.2196/45572

Wearable and Mobile Technologies for the Evaluation and Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Scoping Review

2023· article· en· W4380632941 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsWearable computerObsessive compulsivePsychological interventionWearable technologyDigital healthmHealthBehavioral therapyMedicinePsychiatryPsychologyComputer sciencePsychotherapistClinical psychologyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Smartphones and wearable biosensors can continuously and passively measure aspects of behavior and physiology while also collecting data that require user input. These devices can potentially be used to monitor symptom burden; estimate diagnosis and risk for relapse; predict treatment response; and deliver digital interventions in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), a prevalent and disabling psychiatric condition that often follows a chronic and fluctuating course and may uniquely benefit from these technologies. OBJECTIVE: Given the speed at which mobile and wearable technologies are being developed and implemented in clinical settings, a continual reappraisal of this field is needed. In this scoping review, we map the literature on the use of wearable devices and smartphone-based devices or apps in the assessment, monitoring, or treatment of OCD. METHODS: In July 2022 and April 2023, we conducted an initial search and an updated search, respectively, of multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science, with no restriction on publication period, using the following search strategy: ("OCD" OR "obsessive" OR "obsessive-compulsive") AND ("smartphone" OR "phone" OR "wearable" OR "sensing" OR "biofeedback" OR "neurofeedback" OR "neuro feedback" OR "digital" OR "phenotyping" OR "mobile" OR "heart rate variability" OR "actigraphy" OR "actimetry" OR "biosignals" OR "biomarker" OR "signals" OR "mobile health"). RESULTS: We analyzed 2748 articles, reviewed the full text of 77 articles, and extracted data from the 25 articles included in this review. We divided our review into the following three parts: studies without digital or mobile intervention and with passive data collection, studies without digital or mobile intervention and with active or mixed data collection, and studies with a digital or mobile intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Use of mobile and wearable technologies for OCD has developed primarily in the past 15 years, with an increasing pace of related publications. Passive measures from actigraphy generally match subjective reports. Ecological momentary assessment is well tolerated for the naturalistic assessment of symptoms, may capture novel OCD symptoms, and may also document lower symptom burden than retrospective recall. Digital or mobile treatments are diverse; however, they generally provide some improvement in OCD symptom burden. Finally, ongoing work is needed for a safe and trusted uptake of technology by patients and providers.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.383 · 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