Search for: All records

Abstract Neuropsychiatric disorders pose a high societal cost, but their treatment is hindered by lack of objective outcomes and fidelity metrics. AI technologies and specifically Natural Language Processing (NLP) have emerged as tools to study mental health interventions (MHI) at the level of their constituent conversations. However, NLP’s potential to address clinical and research challenges remains unclear. We therefore conducted a pre-registered systematic review of NLP-MHI studies using PRISMA guidelines (osf.io/s52jh) to evaluate their models, clinical applications, and to identify biases and gaps. Candidate studies (n = 19,756), including peer-reviewed AI conference manuscripts, were collected up to January 2023 through PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ArXiv. A total of 102 articles were included to investigate their computational characteristics (NLP algorithms, audio features, machine learning pipelines, outcome metrics), clinical characteristics (clinical ground truths, study samples, clinical focus), and limitations. Results indicate a rapid growth of NLP MHI studies since 2019, characterized by increased sample sizes and use of large language models. Digital health platforms were the largest providers of MHI data. Ground truth for supervised learning models was based on clinician ratings (n = 31), patient self-report (n = 29) and annotations by raters (n = 26). Text-based features contributed more to model accuracy than audio markers. Patients’ clinical presentation (n = 34), response to intervention (n = 11), intervention monitoring (n = 20), providers’ characteristics (n = 12), relational dynamics (n = 14), and data preparation (n = 4) were commonly investigated clinical categories. Limitations of reviewed studies included lack of linguistic diversity, limited reproducibility, and population bias. A research framework is developed and validated (NLPxMHI) to assist computational and clinical researchers in addressing the remaining gaps in applying NLP to MHI, with the goal of improving clinical utility, data access, and fairness. 

Many-analysts studies explore how well an empirical claim withstands plausible alternative analyses of the same dataset by multiple, independent analysis teams. Conclusions from these studies typically rely on a single outcome metric (e.g. effect size) provided by each analysis team. Although informative about the range of plausible effects in a dataset, a single effect size from each team does not provide a complete, nuanced understanding of how analysis choices are related to the outcome. We used the Delphi consensus technique with input from 37 experts to develop an 18-item subjective evidence evaluation survey (SEES) to evaluate how each analysis team views the methodological appropriateness of the research design and the strength of evidence for the hypothesis. We illustrate the usefulness of the SEES in providing richer evidence assessment with pilot data from a previous many-analysts study. 

Many researchers studying online communities seek to make them better. However, beyond a small set of widely-held values, such as combating misinformation and abuse, determining what `better’ means can be challenging, as community members may disagree, values may be in conflict, and different communities may have differing preferences as a whole.In this work, we present the first study that elicits values directly from members across a diverse set of communities.We survey 212 members of 627 unique subreddits and ask them to describe their values for their communities in their own words. Through iterative categorization of 1,481 responses, we develop and validate a comprehensive taxonomy of community values, consisting of 29 subcategories within nine top-level categories enabling principled, quantitative study of community values by researchers. Using our taxonomy, we reframe existing research problems, such as managing influxes of new members, as tensions between different values, and we identify understudied values, such as those regarding content quality and community size. We call for greater attention to vulnerable community members' values, and we make our codebook public for use in future research. 

Health behaviors are inextricably linked to health and well-being, yet issues such as physical inactivity and insufficient sleep remain significant global public health problems. Mobile technology—and the unprecedented scope and quantity of data it generates—has a promising but largely untapped potential to promote health behaviors at the individual and population levels. This perspective article provides multidisciplinary recommendations on the design and use of mobile technology, and the concomitant wealth of data, to promote behaviors that support overall health. Using physical activity as anexemplar health behavior, we review emerging strategies for health behavior change interventions. We describe progress on personalizing interventions to an individual and their social, cultural, and built environments, as well as on evaluating relationships between mobile technology data and health to establish evidence-based guidelines. In reviewing these strategies and highlighting directions for future research, we advance the use of theory-based, personalized, and human-centered approaches in promoting health behaviors.