Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36692937›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2023

The Feasibility of Implementing Remote Measurement Technologies in Psychological Treatment for Depression: Mixed Methods Study on Engagement.

Valeria de Angel, Fadekemi Adeleye, Yuezhou Zhang, Nicholas Cummins, Sara Munir, Serena Lewis, Estela Laporta Puyal, Faith Matcham, Shaoxiong Sun, Amos A Folarin and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Asynchronous Technologies in Mental Health Care and Education.Current treatment options in psychiatry · 2023
    Review
  18. Observational
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Valeria de AngelDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5109-3636
Fadekemi AdeleyeDepartment of Psychology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9959-427X
Yuezhou ZhangDepartment of Biostatistics & Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4817-3835
Nicholas CumminsDepartment of Biostatistics & Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1178-917X
Sara MunirLewisham Talking Therapies, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6818-9856
Serena LewisDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4962-9673
Estela Laporta PuyalBiomedical Signal Interpretation and Computational Simulation Group, Aragón Institute of Engineering Research (I3A), IIS Aragón, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6776-8522
Faith MatchamDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4055-904X
Shaoxiong SunDepartment of Biostatistics & Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3652-5266
Amos A FolarinNIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre,  South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0333-1927
Yatharth RanjanInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3079-3120
Pauline CondeInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0513-0915
Zulqarnain RashidInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6843-9920
Richard DobsonDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4224-9245
Matthew HotopfDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3980-4466

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17214Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRemote measurement technologies (RMTs) such as smartphones and wearables can help improve treatment for depression by providing objective, continuous, and ecologically valid insights into mood and behavior. Engagement with RMTs is varied and highly context dependent; however, few studies have investigated their feasibility in the context of treatment.

objectiveA mixed methods design was used to evaluate engagement with active and passive data collection via RMT in people with depression undergoing psychotherapy. We evaluated the effects of treatment on 2 different types of engagement: study attrition (engagement with study protocol) and patterns of missing data (engagement with digital devices), which we termed data availability. Qualitative interviews were conducted to help interpret the differences in engagement.

methodsA total of 66 people undergoing psychological therapy for depression were followed up for 7 months. Active data were gathered from weekly questionnaires and speech and cognitive tasks, and passive data were gathered from smartphone sensors and a Fitbit (Fitbit Inc) wearable device.

resultsThe overall retention rate was 60%. Higher-intensity treatment (χ

conclusionsDifferent data streams showed varied patterns of missing data, despite being gathered from the same device. Longer and more complex treatments and clinical characteristics such as higher baseline anxiety may reduce long-term engagement with RMTs, and different devices may show opposite patterns of missingness during treatment. This has implications for the scalability and uptake of RMTs in health care settings, the generalizability and accuracy of the data collected by these methods, feature construction, and the appropriateness of RMT use in the long term.

Indexed as

anxietydepressiondigital healthdigital phenotypingmHealthmobile healthmobile phonepassive sensingsmartphonewearable devices

Identifiers

PMID36692937
PMCPMC9906314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.