Toward Digital Self-Monitoring of Mental Health in the General Population: Scoping Review of Existing Approaches to Self-Report Measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the ubiquity of smartphones, digital self-report instruments have enormous potential to support the general population in monitoring their mental health. A primary challenge for researchers committed to advancing this work is simply to scope the plethora of widely used candidate instruments. The overarching aim of this study was to address this challenge to support and guide future research in this burgeoning area. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to conduct a literature review of self-report instruments used in empirical studies to measure mental health (1) in the general population, (2) delivered in a digital format, and (3) in longitudinal designs. Given the wide range of recognized "mental health" constructs, the review's search strategies were guided by Keyes' dual continua model of mental health, recognizing both deficits- and strengths-based constructs. This study's primary objective was to develop a first-of-its-kind ranking and synthesis of the most frequently used instruments that are potentially suitable for mental health self-monitoring. It was not an objective of this study to evaluate psychometric properties of the identified instruments-we hope the present ranking and synthesis will provide the foundation for future research into optimal digital, prospective self-report of mental health. METHODS: Five major electronic databases were searched. Studies that administered digital mental health instruments (in English) repeatedly to community dwellers in the general adult population were eligible. The included studies were grouped by instruments for synthesis using a narrative approach. RESULTS: Preliminary screening of 95,849 records identified 8460 eligible records, among which 1000 records were randomly selected over 4 iterations for full-text screening. A total of 223 records were included. We found that the top 30 most commonly used instruments accounted for 78.4% (308/393) of the total usage across studies. These instruments predominantly measure deficits-based mental health constructs. The Patient Health Questionnaire 9 Items and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 Items were by far the most used instruments. The most commonly measured strengths-based constructs were life satisfaction and mental well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review strongly suggest that scientific investigation of mental health constructs across time on digital platforms still prioritizes deficits-focused instruments originally developed for pen-and-paper administration using classical test theory. These findings are discussed in light of evidence in the literature that deficits-focused instruments demonstrate inferior distributional properties (floor effects) in the general population and theory suggesting that both deficits- and strengths-focused measurements are required to holistically assess mental health. Limitations of the review include the restricted focus on English language instruments and the pragmatic approach to selecting records for full-text screening. It is concluded that, in the smartphone age, it would be timely to develop new digital instruments framed by holistic models of mental health and using contemporary test construction approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022306547; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022306547. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065162.
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 | 0.075 | 0.235 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".