MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385896148 · doi:10.2196/46909

Clinician and Patient Perspectives on the Use of Passive Mobile Monitoring and Self-Tracking for Patients With Serious Mental Illness: User-Centered Approach

2023· article· en· W4385896148 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melissa Medich, Shay Cannedy, Lauren Hoffmann, Melissa Chinchilla, Jose M Pila, Stephanie Chassman, Ronald A Calderon, Alexander S. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIH Clinical CenterHealth Services Research and DevelopmentU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMental healthUsabilityMedicinemHealthMental illnessHealth carePsychological interventionTelemedicineIntervention (counseling)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early intervention in mental health crises can prevent negative outcomes. A promising new direction is remote mental health monitoring using smartphone technology to passively collect data from individuals to rapidly detect the worsening of serious mental illness (SMI). This technology may benefit patients with SMI, but little is known about health IT acceptability among this population or their mental health clinicians. OBJECTIVE: We used the Health Information Technology Acceptability Model to analyze the acceptability and usability of passive mobile monitoring and self-tracking among patients with serious mental illness and their mental health clinicians. METHODS: Data collection took place between December 2020 and June 2021 in 1 Veterans Administration health care system. Interviews with mental health clinicians (n=16) assessed the acceptability of mobile sensing, its usefulness as a tool to improve clinical assessment and care, and recommendations for program refinements. Focus groups with patients with SMI (n=3 groups) and individual usability tests (n=8) elucidated patient attitudes about engaging in health IT and perceptions of its usefulness as a tool for self-tracking and improving mental health assessments. RESULTS: Clinicians discussed the utility of web-based data dashboards to monitor patients with SMI health behaviors and receiving alerts about their worsening health. Potential benefits included improving clinical care, capturing behaviors patients do not self-report, watching trends, and receiving alerts. Clinicians' concerns included increased workloads tied to dashboard data review, lack of experience using health IT in clinical care, and how SMI patients' associated paranoia and financial instability would impact patient uptake. Despite concerns, all mental health clinicians stated that they would recommend it. Almost all patients with SMI were receptive to using smartphone dashboards for self-monitoring and having behavioral change alerts sent to their mental health clinicians. They found the mobile app easy to navigate and dashboards easy to find and understand. Patient concerns centered on privacy and "government tracking," and their phone's battery life and data plans. Despite concerns, most reported that they would use it. CONCLUSIONS: Many people with SMI would like to have mobile informatics tools that can support their illness and recovery. Similar to other populations (eg, older adults, people experiencing homelessness) this population presents challenges to adoption and implementation. Health care organizations will need to provide resources to address these and support successful illness management. Clinicians are supportive of technological approaches, with adapting informatics data into their workflow as the primary challenge. Despite clear challenges, technological developments are increasingly designed to be acceptable to patients. The research development-clinical deployment gap must be addressed by health care systems, similar to computerized cognitive training. It will ensure clinicians operate at the top of their skill set and are not overwhelmed by administrative tasks, data summarization, or reviewing data that do not indicate a need for intervention. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/39010.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207