Acceptability and Feasibility of a Smartphone-Based Real-Time Assessment of Suicide Among Black Men: Mixed Methods Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suicide rates in the United States have increased recently among Black men. To address this public health crisis, smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) platforms are a promising way to collect dynamic, real-time data that can help improve suicide prevention efforts. Despite the promise of this methodology, little is known about its suitability in detecting experiences related to suicidal thoughts and behavior (STB) among Black men. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to clarify the acceptability and feasibility of using smartphone-based EMA through a pilot study that assesses the user experience among Black men. METHODS: We recruited Black men aged 18 years and older using the MyChart patient portal messaging (the patient-facing side of the Epic electronic medical record system) or outpatient provider referrals. Eligible participants self-identified as Black men with a previous history of STB and ownership of an Android or iOS smartphone. Eligible participants completed a 7-day smartphone-based EMA study. They received a prompt 4 times per day to complete a brief survey detailing their STB, as well as proximal risk factors, such as depression, social isolation, and feeling like a burden to others. At the conclusion of each day, participants also received a daily diary survey detailing their sleep quality and their daily experiences of everyday discrimination. Participants completed a semistructured exit interview of 60-90 minutes at the study's conclusion. RESULTS: In total, 10 participants completed 166 EMA surveys and 39 daily diary entries. A total of 4 of the 10 participants completed 75% (21/28) or more of the EMA surveys, while 9 (90%) out of 10 completed 25% (7/28) or more. The average completion rate of all surveys was 58% (20.3/35), with a minimum of 17% (6/35) and maximum of 100% (35/35). A total of 4 (40%) out of 10 participants completed daily diary entries for the full pilot study. No safety-related incidents were reported. On average, participants took 2.08 minutes to complete EMA prompts and 2.72 minutes for daily diary surveys. Our qualitative results generally affirm the acceptability and feasibility of the study procedures, but the participants noted difficulties with the technology and the redundancy of the survey questions. Emerging themes also addressed issues such as reduced EMA survey compliance and diminished mood related to deficit-framed questions related to suicide. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study will be used to clarify the suitability of EMA for Black men. Overall, our EMA pilot study demonstrated mixed feasibility and acceptability when delivered through smartphone-based apps to Black men. Specific recommendations are provided for managing safety within these study designs and for refinements in future intervention and implementation science research. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/31241.
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 | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".