Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41361531›Full record

ArticleNPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience2024

What patients and caregivers want to know when consenting to the use of digital behavioral markers.

Anika Sonig, Christine Deeney, Meghan E Hurley, Eric A Storch, John Herrington, Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, Casey J Zampella, Birkan Tunc, Julia Parish-Morris, Jenny Blumenthal-Barby and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Towards Human-Centered Digital Health Interventions.The Psychiatric clinics of North America · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

11 authors.

Anika SonigCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. soniga@ccf.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0513-5586
Christine DeeneyCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Meghan E HurleyCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Eric A StorchMenninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
John HerringtonDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Gabriel Lázaro-MuñozCenter for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Casey J ZampellaDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Birkan TuncDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Julia Parish-MorrisDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jenny Blumenthal-BarbyCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Kristin Kostick-QuenetCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) 1R01TR004243U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) 3R01MH125958
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computational tools for deriving digital behavioral markers are increasingly able to automatically detect clinically relevant patterns in mood and behavior through algorithmic analysis of continuously and passively collected data. The integration of these technologies into clinical care is imminent, most notably in clinical psychology and psychiatry but also other disciplines (e.g., cardiology, neurology, neurosurgery, pain management). Meanwhile, ethical guidelines for implementation are lacking, as are insights into what patients and caregivers want and need to know about these technologies to ensure acceptability and informed consent. In this work, we present qualitative findings from interviews with 40 adolescent patients and their caregivers examining ethical and practical considerations for translating these technologies into clinical care. We observed seven key domains (in order of salience) in stakeholders' informational needs: (1) clinical utility and value; (2) evidence, explainability, evaluation and contestation; (3) accuracy and trustworthiness; (4) data security, privacy, and misuse; (5) patient consent, control, and autonomy; (6) physician-patient relationship; and (7) patient safety, well-being, and dignity. Drawing from these themes, we provide a checklist of questions, as well as suggestions and key challenges, to help researchers and practitioners respond to what stakeholders want to know when integrating these technologies into clinical care and research. Our findings inform participatory approaches to co-designing treatment roadmaps for using these AI-based tools for enhanced patient engagement, acceptability and informed consent.

Identifiers

PMID41361531
PMCPMC12624933

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.