MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391135401 · doi:10.2196/49577

Health Care Professionals’ Views on the Use of Passive Sensing, AI, and Machine Learning in Mental Health Care: Systematic Review With Meta-Synthesis

2024· review· en· W4391135401 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica Rogan, Sandra Bucci, Joseph Firth

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersManchester Biomedical Research CentreNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUK Research and InnovationWellcome Trust
KeywordsMental healthThematic analysisEmpowermentHealth careDigital healthNursingPsychologyKnowledge managementQualitative researchMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mental health difficulties are highly prevalent worldwide. Passive sensing technologies and applied artificial intelligence (AI) methods can provide an innovative means of supporting the management of mental health problems and enhancing the quality of care. However, the views of stakeholders are important in understanding the potential barriers to and facilitators of their implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review, critically appraise, and synthesize qualitative findings relating to the views of mental health care professionals on the use of passive sensing and AI in mental health care. METHODS: A systematic search of qualitative studies was performed using 4 databases. A meta-synthesis approach was used, whereby studies were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach within a critical realist epistemological framework. RESULTS: Overall, 10 studies met the eligibility criteria. The 3 main themes were uses of passive sensing and AI in clinical practice, barriers to and facilitators of use in practice, and consequences for service users. A total of 5 subthemes were identified: barriers, facilitators, empowerment, risk to well-being, and data privacy and protection issues. CONCLUSIONS: Although clinicians are open-minded about the use of passive sensing and AI in mental health care, important factors to consider are service user well-being, clinician workloads, and therapeutic relationships. Service users and clinicians must be involved in the development of digital technologies and systems to ensure ease of use. The development of, and training in, clear policies and guidelines on the use of passive sensing and AI in mental health care, including risk management and data security procedures, will also be key to facilitating clinician engagement. The means for clinicians and service users to provide feedback on how the use of passive sensing and AI in practice is being received should also be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022331698; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=331698.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations44
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207