MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408167123 · doi:10.2196/63279

Testing a Dashboard Intervention for Tracking Digital Social Media Activity in Clinical Care of Individuals With Mood and Anxiety Disorders: Protocol and Design Considerations for a Pragmatic Randomized Trial

2025· article· en· W4408167123 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brittany Nesbitt, Danielle Virgadamo, Carlos Aguirre, Matthew DeCamp, Mark Dredze, Keith Harrigian, Tenzin Lhaksampa, Jennifer M. Meuchel, Alexandra Walker, Ayah Zirikly, Margaret S. Chisolm, Peter P. Zandi, Leslie Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyRandomized controlled trialMoodProtocol (science)Intervention (counseling)Social mediaSocial anxietyPsychologyApplied psychologyClinical psychologyResearch designMedicinePsychiatryAlternative medicineComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mood and anxiety disorders are prevalent mental health diagnoses. Numerous studies have shown that measurement-based care, which is used to monitor patient symptoms, functioning, and treatment progress and help guide clinical decisions and collaboration on treatment goals, can improve outcomes in patients with these disorders. Including digital information regarding patients' electronic communications and social media activity is an innovative approach to augmenting measurement-based care. Recent data indicate interest and willingness from both mental health clinicians and patients to share this type of digital information in treatment sessions. However, the clinical benefit of systematically doing this has been minimally evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop an electronic dashboard for tracking patients' digital social activity and a protocol for a pragmatic randomized trial to test the feasibility and efficacy of using the dashboard in real-world clinical care of patients with depression or anxiety disorders. METHODS: We developed a personalized electronic dashboard that tracks patients' electronic communications and social media activity, visualizes data on these interactions through key graphics and figures, and provides a tool that can be readily integrated into routine clinical care for use by clinicians and patients during treatment sessions. We then designed a randomized trial to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of using the electronic dashboard in real-world care compared to treatment as usual. The trial included patients aged ≥12 years with a mood or anxiety disorder who were receiving treatment in outpatient psychiatry clinics in the Johns Hopkins Health System and the Kennedy Krieger Institute. The primary outcome includes changes in patient-rated depression symptoms. Secondary outcomes include changes in patient-rated anxiety symptoms and overall functioning. Exploratory analyses examine the impact of the intervention on measures of therapeutic alliance and the detection of clinically actionable targets. RESULTS: We successfully developed an electronic dashboard for tracking patients' electronic communications and social media activity, and we implemented a protocol for evaluating the feasibility and efficacy of using the dashboard in routine care for mood or anxiety disorders. The protocol was approved by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. In this study, we report the technological, ethical, and pragmatic considerations in developing the dashboard and testing it in a real-world setting. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of an electronic dashboard to monitor digital social activity in mental health care treatment is novel. This study examines the feasibility and effectiveness of the dashboard and the challenges in implementing this protocol. The lessons learned from developing and implementing the study will inform ongoing discussions about the value of gathering collateral information on patients' digital social activity and how to do so in a way that is acceptable and clinically effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03925038; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03925038. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/63279.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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