Toward Digital Self-Monitoring of Mental Health in the General Population: Scoping Review of Existing Approaches to Self-Report Measurement.

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Jmir Mental Health Pub Date : 2025-09-18 DOI:10.2196/59351
Zhao Hui Koh, Duygu Serbetci, Jason Skues, Greg Murray
{"title":"Toward Digital Self-Monitoring of Mental Health in the General Population: Scoping Review of Existing Approaches to Self-Report Measurement.","authors":"Zhao Hui Koh, Duygu Serbetci, Jason Skues, Greg Murray","doi":"10.2196/59351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42022306547; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022306547.</p><p><strong>International registered report identifier (irrid): </strong>RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065162.</p>","PeriodicalId":48616,"journal":{"name":"Jmir Mental Health","volume":"12 ","pages":"e59351"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jmir Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/59351","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

迈向普通人群心理健康的数字自我监测:对现有自我报告测量方法的范围审查
背景:随着智能手机的普及,数字自我报告工具在支持一般人群监测其心理健康方面具有巨大的潜力。致力于推进这项工作的研究人员面临的主要挑战是确定广泛使用的候选仪器的范围。本研究的总体目标是解决这一挑战,以支持和指导这一新兴领域的未来研究。目的:本研究旨在对实证研究中用于测量心理健康的自我报告工具进行文献综述(1)在普通人群中,(2)以数字格式提供,(3)在纵向设计中。鉴于公认的“心理健康”构念的范围广泛,本综述的搜索策略以Keyes的心理健康双连续模型为指导,识别基于缺陷和优势的构念。这项研究的主要目标是开发一种最常用的工具的排名和综合,这些工具可能适用于心理健康自我监测。本研究的目的不是评估所确定的工具的心理测量特性,我们希望目前的排名和综合将为未来研究最佳的数字化、前瞻性心理健康自我报告提供基础。方法:检索5大电子数据库。对普通成年人口中的社区居民反复使用数字心理健康工具(英文)的研究符合条件。纳入的研究采用叙事方法按综合工具分组。结果:初步筛选95,849条记录,筛选出8460条符合条件的记录,其中随机抽取1000条记录,经过4次迭代进行全文筛选。总共包括223条记录。我们发现,在所有研究中,最常用的30种仪器占总使用量的78.4%(308/393)。这些工具主要测量基于缺陷的心理健康结构。患者健康问卷9项和广泛性焦虑障碍7项是目前使用最多的工具。最常测量的基于优势的构念是生活满意度和心理健康。结论:本综述的发现强烈表明,对数字平台上跨时间心理健康结构的科学调查仍然优先考虑最初使用经典测试理论为笔和纸管理开发的以缺陷为重点的工具。这些发现是根据文献中的证据来讨论的,这些证据表明,以缺陷为重点的工具在一般人群中表现出较差的分布特性(底部效应),并且理论表明,以缺陷和优势为重点的测量方法都是全面评估心理健康所必需的。审查的局限性包括对英语语言工具的有限关注和选择记录进行全文筛选的实用主义方法。结论是,在智能手机时代,开发以心理健康整体模型为框架的新型数字仪器并使用现代测试构建方法是及时的。试验注册:PROSPERO CRD42022306547;https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022306547.International注册报告标识符(irrid): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065162。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Jmir Mental Health
Jmir Mental Health Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
3.80%
发文量
104
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR Mental Health (JMH, ISSN 2368-7959) is a PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed sister journal of JMIR, the leading eHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175). JMIR Mental Health focusses on digital health and Internet interventions, technologies and electronic innovations (software and hardware) for mental health, addictions, online counselling and behaviour change. This includes formative evaluation and system descriptions, theoretical papers, review papers, viewpoint/vision papers, and rigorous evaluations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信