Toward a New Conceptual Framework for Digital Mental Health Technologies: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Digital mental health technologies (DMHTs) are becoming more widely available and are seen as having the potential to improve the quality of mental health care. However, conversations around the potential impact of DMHTs can be impacted by a lack of focus on the types of technologies that are available. Several frameworks that could apply to DMHTs are available, but they have not been developed with comprehensive methods and have limitations. Objective: To address limitations with current frameworks, we aimed to identify existing literature on the categorization of DMHTs, to explore challenges with categorizing DMHTs for specific purposes, and to develop a new conceptual framework. Methods: We used an iterative approach to develop the framework. First, we completed a rapid review of the literature to identify studies that provided domains that could be used to categorize DMHTs. Second, findings from this review and associated issues were discussed by an expert working group, including professionals from a wide range of relevant settings. Third, we synthesized findings to develop a new conceptual framework. Results: The rapid review identified 3603 unique results, and hand searching identified another 3 potentially relevant papers. Of these, 24 papers were eligible for inclusion, which provided 10 domains to categorize DMHTs. The expert working group proposed a broad framework and based on the findings of the review and group discussions, we developed a new conceptual framework with 8 domains that represent important characteristics of DMHTs. These 8 domains are population, setting, platform or system, purpose, type of approach, human interaction, human responsiveness, and functionality. Conclusions: This conceptual framework provides a structure for various stakeholders to define the key characteristics of DMHTs. It has been developed with more comprehensive methods than previous attempts with similar aims. The framework can facilitate communication within the field and could undergo further iteration to ensure it is appropriate for specific purposes.
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 | 0.260 | 0.274 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.109 | 0.067 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.057 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".