MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115062290 · doi:10.2196/77167

Mental Health Profiles Based on Self-Regulation and Technology Use in the Digital Era in a Spanish-Speaking Sample: Latent Profile Analysis

2025· article· en· W7115062290 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Perspective (graphical)Mental healthDigital healthDigital eraPsychological distressDistressLatent class model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The widespread use of digital technologies has raised growing concerns about their impact on mental health. While self-regulation has been proposed as a protective factor, little is known about how distinct psychological profiles based on self-regulatory and technology use patterns relate to psychological distress. Person-centered approaches, such as latent profile analysis, may offer deeper insights, particularly in underrepresented populations. Objective: This study aimed to identify latent psychological profiles based on self-regulation, nomophobia (fear of being without a phone), and problematic use of the internet and social media (defined by behavioral symptoms), to examine their associations with general psychological distress and the presence of emotional symptoms in a Colombian sample. Additionally, the predictive roles of age and gender in class membership were explored. Methods: Participants were recruited through a convenience sampling strategy aimed at ensuring heterogeneity of the sample in terms of age and gender. A total of 453 participants aged 12 to 57 years (mean 21.03, SD 8.41 years; 257/453, 56.7% female) completed validated measures of self-regulation (Abbreviated Self-Regulation Questionnaire), nomophobia (Nomophobia Questionnaire), internet and social media use (MULTICAGE-TIC, a multidomain screening questionnaire based on the CAGE framework), and psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12). Latent profile analysis was conducted using standardized scores of continuous variables. Model fit was assessed using the Bayesian information criterion, entropy, and bootstrapped likelihood ratio test. Differences in psychological distress scores across latent classes were examined through variance analysis (ANOVA) and regression models. A multinomial logistic regression tested the predictive value of age and gender for class membership. Results: The optimal solution revealed 4 distinct latent profiles (entropy=0.85). Class 1 showed high self-regulation and low problematic technology use, displaying the lowest psychological distress scores. Class 2 presented moderate levels across all indicators but the highest level of psychological distress. Classes 3 and 4 showed mixed patterns. Class 3 (higher information and communication technology [ICT] use and lower self-regulation) exhibited lower distress than class 2, whereas class 4 (younger individuals with low self-regulation and moderately high ICT use) showed higher distress than class 3. Psychological distress differed significantly across profiles (ANOVA, P<.001). Age and gender predicted class membership. Older males were more likely to belong to class 1, and younger females were more likely to be classified into classes 3 and 4. Conclusions: Latent profile analysis identified distinct configurations of digital behavior, self-regulation, and psychological distress. Self-regulation consistently differentiated profiles with lower distress scores, suggesting its relevance for understanding how individuals manage ICT use. These findings support the value of person-centered approaches to characterize heterogeneous patterns of technology-related behaviors. The study provides evidence from a Spanish-speaking sample, offering a novel perspective on psychological distress and problematic technology use in contexts that remain underrepresented in the literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207