Dashboard Intervention for Tracking Digital Social Media Activity in the Clinical Care of Individuals With Mood and Anxiety Disorders: Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Digital social activity, defined as interactions on social media and electronic communication platforms, has become increasingly important. Social factors impact mental health and can contribute to depression and anxiety. Therefore, incorporating digital social activity into routine mental health care has the potential to improve outcomes. Objective: This study aimed to compare treatment augmented with an electronic dashboard of patient's digital social activity versus treatment-as-usual on patient-rated outcomes symptoms of depression in a randomized trial of patients with mood and anxiety disorders. Methods: We developed a personalized electronic dashboard summarizing a participant's digital social activity. This dashboard, collaboratively discussed during mental health visits, was used to augment clinical care and tested in a randomized trial against treatment-as-usual. Clinicians and patients were recruited from outpatient psychiatry clinics. Patients were eligible if they were 12 years or older and were receiving treatment for a mood or anxiety disorder. Psychiatric symptoms measures for depression (primary outcome measure) and anxiety (secondary outcome measure) were obtained at each clinic visit as part of measurement-based standard of care. Baseline and 3-month follow-up assessments included a measure of mental health status and therapeutic alliance measure. Collateral information and clinical action scale were also collected at each visit. Results: A total of 103 patients consented to participate, 97 of whom were randomized to the dashboard arm (n=49) or the treatment-as-usual arm (n=48). There were no differences in psychiatry symptom rating scores or mental health status between the two arms. However, there was a significant increase in the discussion of digital social activity with the intervention, and it did not appear to change patient therapeutic alliance. Conclusions: The incorporation of a personalized electronic dashboard into clinical care was feasible and led to an increased discussion of digital social activity, but there was no impact on mental health outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".