Designing a Visual Analytics Tool to Support Data Analysis Tasks of Digital Mental Health Interventions: Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions (DHIs) are widely used to manage users' health in everyday life through digital devices. The use of DHIs generates various data, such as records of intervention use and the status of target symptoms, providing researchers with data-driven insights for improving these interventions even after deployment. Although DHI researchers have investigated these data, existing analysis practices have been fragmented, limiting a comprehensive understanding of the data. OBJECTIVE: We proposed an analysis task model to help DHI researchers analyze observational data from a holistic perspective. This model was then used to prototype an interactive visual analytics tool. We aimed to evaluate the suitability of the model for DHI data analysis and explore task support using a visual analytics tool. METHODS: We constructed a data analysis task model using 3 key components (ie, user grouping criteria) for DHI data analysis: user characteristics, user engagement with DHIs, and the effectiveness of DHIs on target symptoms based on comparisons before and after the intervention. On the basis of this model, we designed Maum Health Analytics, a medium-fidelity prototype of an interactive visual analytics tool. Each feature of the prototype was mapped one-to-one to the analysis task described in the model. To investigate whether the proposed model adequately reflects real-world DHI analysis needs, we conducted a preliminary user study with 5 groups of researchers (N=15). Participants explored the tool through scenario-based analysis tasks using in-the-wild data collected from a mobile DHI service targeting depressive symptoms. Following the session, we conducted interviews to assess the appropriateness of the defined tasks and the usability and practical utility of the visual analytics tool. RESULTS: DHI researchers responded positively to both the analysis task model and the visual analytics tool. In the interviews, participants noted that the tool supported the identification of users who needed additional care, informed content recommendations, and helped analyze intervention effectiveness in relation to user characteristics and engagement levels. They also appreciated the tool's role in simplifying analytic tasks and supporting communication across multidisciplinary teams. Additional suggestions included improvements for continuity across tasks and more detailed engagement metrics. CONCLUSIONS: We proposed an analysis task model and designed an interactive visual analytics tool to support DHI researchers. Our user study showed that the model allows a holistic investigation of DHI data by integrating key analysis components and that the prototype tool simplifies analytic tasks and enhances communication among researchers. As DHIs grow, the proposed model and tool can effectively meet the data analysis requirements of researchers and improve efficiency.
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 | 0.026 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".