The Google Health Digital Well-Being Study: Protocol for a Digital Device Use and Well-Being Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of digital device use on health and well-being is a pressing question. However, the scientific literature on this topic, to date, is marred by small and unrepresentative samples, poor measurement of core constructs, and a limited ability to address the psychological and behavioral mechanisms that may underlie the relationships between device use and well-being. Recent authoritative reviews have made urgent calls for future research projects to address these limitations. The critical role of research is to identify which patterns of use are associated with benefits versus risks and who is more vulnerable to harmful versus beneficial outcomes, so that we can pursue evidence-based product design, education, and regulation aimed at maximizing benefits and minimizing the risks of smartphones and other digital devices. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to provide normative data on objective patterns of smartphone use. We aim to (1) identify how patterns of smartphone use impact well-being and identify groups of individuals who show similar patterns of covariation between smartphone use and well-being measures across time; (2) examine sociodemographic and personality or mental health predictors and which patterns of smartphone use and well-being are associated with pre-post changes in mental health and functioning; (3) discover which nondevice behavior patterns mediate the association between device use and well-being; (4) identify and explore recruitment strategies to increase and improve the representation of traditionally underrepresented populations; and (5) provide a real-world baseline of observed stress, mood, insomnia, physical activity, and sleep across a representative population. METHODS: This is a prospective, nonrandomized study to investigate the patterns and relationships among digital device use, sensor-based measures (including both behavioral and physiological signals), and self-reported measures of mental health and well-being. The study duration is 4 weeks per participant and includes passive sensing based on smartphone sensors, and optionally a wearable (Fitbit), for the complete study period. The smartphone device will provide activity, location, phone unlocks and app usage, and battery status information. RESULTS: At the time of submission, the study infrastructure and app have been designed and built, the institutional review board of the University of Oregon has approved the study protocol, and data collection is underway. Data from 4182 enrolled and consented participants have been collected as of March 27, 2023. We have made many efforts to sample a study population that matches the general population, and the demographic breakdown we have been able to achieve, to date, is not a perfect match. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of digital devices on mental health and well-being raises important questions. The Digital Well-Being Study is designed to help answer questions about the association between patterns of smartphone use and well-being. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/49189.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".