MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403113918 · doi:10.2196/59785

Integrating Patient-Generated Digital Data Into Mental Health Therapy: Mixed Methods Analysis of User Experience

2024· article· en· W4403113918 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lauren Southwick, Meghana Sharma, Sunny Rai, Rinad S. Beidas, David S. Mandell, David A. Asch, Brenda Curtis, Sharath Chandra Guntuku, Raina M. Merchant

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
KeywordsPreprintMental healthDigital healthPsychologyComputer scienceMedicinePsychotherapistWorld Wide WebHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Therapists and their patients increasingly discuss digital data from social media, smartphone sensors, and other online engagements within the context of psychotherapy. Objective: We examined patients' and mental health therapists' experiences and perceptions following a randomized controlled trial in which they both received regular summaries of patients' digital data (eg, dashboard) to review and discuss in session. The dashboard included data that patients consented to share from their social media posts, phone usage, and online searches. Methods: Following the randomized controlled trial, patient (n=56) and therapist (n=44) participants completed a debriefing survey after their study completion (from December 2021 to January 2022). Participants were asked about their experience receiving a digital data dashboard in psychotherapy via closed- and open-ended questions. We calculated descriptive statistics for closed-ended questions and conducted qualitative coding via NVivo (version 10; Lumivero) and natural language processing using the machine learning tool latent Dirichlet allocation to analyze open-ended questions. Results: Of 100 participants, nearly half (n=48, 49%) described their experience with the dashboard as "positive," while the other half noted a "neutral" experience. Responses to the open-ended questions resulted in three thematic areas (nine subcategories): (1) dashboard experience (positive, neutral or negative, and comfortable); (2) perception of the dashboard's impact on enhancing therapy (accountability, increased awareness over time, and objectivity); and (3) dashboard refinements (additional sources, tailored content, and privacy). Conclusions: Patients reported that receiving their digital data helped them stay "accountable," while therapists indicated that the dashboard helped "tailor treatment plans." Patient and therapist surveys provided important feedback on their experience regularly discussing dashboards in psychotherapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.429 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental Health→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→