Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36693693›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Digital self-report instruments for repeated measurement of mental health in the general adult population: a protocol for a systematic review.

Zhao Hui Koh, Jason Skues, Greg Murray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Zhao Hui KohCentre for Mental Health, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia zhao.koh@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-9533-6495
Jason SkuesDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.
Greg MurrayCentre for Mental Health, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDigital technologies present tremendous opportunities for enabling long-term measurement of mental health in the general population. Emerging studies have established preliminary efficacy of collecting self-report data digitally. However, a key challenge when developing a new self-report instrument is navigating the abundance of existing instruments to select relevant constructs for measurements. This review is a precursor to developing a novel future integrated digital instrument for repeated measurements. We interrogate the literature as the first step towards optimal measurement of the multifaceted mental health concept, in the context of digital repeated measurement. This review aims to identify (1) digital self-report instruments administered repeatedly to measure the mental health of the general adult population; (2) their structure and format; (3) their psychometric properties; (4) their usage in empirical studies; and (5) the constructs these instruments were designed to measure (as characterised in the original publication), and the constructs the instruments have been used to measure in the identified empirical studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Five major electronic databases will be searched. Studies administering mental health instruments (in English) repeatedly to community dwellers in the general adult population are eligible. A reviewer will preliminarily screen for eligible studies. Then, two reviewers will independently screen the full text of the eligible articles and extract data. Both reviewers will resolve any disagreement through discussion or with a third reviewer. After the data extraction, a reviewer will manually search for the structure, format, psychometric properties and the original constructs these instruments were developed to measure. This review will synthesise the results in a narrative approach. The reporting in this review will be guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as no data will be collected. Findings of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022306547.

Indexed as

Mental HealthResearch DesignAdultDissent and DisputesHumansPsychometricsReview Literature as TopicSelf Reportadult psychiatrymental healthpublic health

Identifiers

PMID36693693
PMCPMC9884895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.