Ethical Development of Digital Phenotyping Tools for Mental Health Applications: Delphi Study.
Delphi study
artificial intelligence
digital mental health
digital phenotyping
ethics
machine learning
mental health
mobile phone
neuroethics
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 07 2021
28 07 2021
Historique:
received:
22
01
2021
accepted:
21
05
2021
revised:
06
05
2021
entrez:
28
7
2021
pubmed:
29
7
2021
medline:
11
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Digital phenotyping (also known as personal sensing, intelligent sensing, or body computing) involves the collection of biometric and personal data in situ from digital devices, such as smartphones, wearables, or social media, to measure behavior or other health indicators. The collected data are analyzed to generate moment-by-moment quantification of a person's mental state and potentially predict future mental states. Digital phenotyping projects incorporate data from multiple sources, such as electronic health records, biometric scans, or genetic testing. As digital phenotyping tools can be used to study and predict behavior, they are of increasing interest for a range of consumer, government, and health care applications. In clinical care, digital phenotyping is expected to improve mental health diagnoses and treatment. At the same time, mental health applications of digital phenotyping present significant areas of ethical concern, particularly in terms of privacy and data protection, consent, bias, and accountability. This study aims to develop consensus statements regarding key areas of ethical guidance for mental health applications of digital phenotyping in the United States. We used a modified Delphi technique to identify the emerging ethical challenges posed by digital phenotyping for mental health applications and to formulate guidance for addressing these challenges. Experts in digital phenotyping, data science, mental health, law, and ethics participated as panelists in the study. The panel arrived at consensus recommendations through an iterative process involving interviews and surveys. The panelists focused primarily on clinical applications for digital phenotyping for mental health but also included recommendations regarding transparency and data protection to address potential areas of misuse of digital phenotyping data outside of the health care domain. The findings of this study showed strong agreement related to these ethical issues in the development of mental health applications of digital phenotyping: privacy, transparency, consent, accountability, and fairness. Consensus regarding the recommendation statements was strongest when the guidance was stated broadly enough to accommodate a range of potential applications. The privacy and data protection issues that the Delphi participants found particularly critical to address related to the perceived inadequacies of current regulations and frameworks for protecting sensitive personal information and the potential for sale and analysis of personal data outside of health systems. The Delphi study found agreement on a number of ethical issues to prioritize in the development of digital phenotyping for mental health applications. The Delphi consensus statements identified general recommendations and principles regarding the ethical application of digital phenotyping to mental health. As digital phenotyping for mental health is implemented in clinical care, there remains a need for empirical research and consultation with relevant stakeholders to further understand and address relevant ethical issues.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Digital phenotyping (also known as personal sensing, intelligent sensing, or body computing) involves the collection of biometric and personal data in situ from digital devices, such as smartphones, wearables, or social media, to measure behavior or other health indicators. The collected data are analyzed to generate moment-by-moment quantification of a person's mental state and potentially predict future mental states. Digital phenotyping projects incorporate data from multiple sources, such as electronic health records, biometric scans, or genetic testing. As digital phenotyping tools can be used to study and predict behavior, they are of increasing interest for a range of consumer, government, and health care applications. In clinical care, digital phenotyping is expected to improve mental health diagnoses and treatment. At the same time, mental health applications of digital phenotyping present significant areas of ethical concern, particularly in terms of privacy and data protection, consent, bias, and accountability.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to develop consensus statements regarding key areas of ethical guidance for mental health applications of digital phenotyping in the United States.
METHODS
We used a modified Delphi technique to identify the emerging ethical challenges posed by digital phenotyping for mental health applications and to formulate guidance for addressing these challenges. Experts in digital phenotyping, data science, mental health, law, and ethics participated as panelists in the study. The panel arrived at consensus recommendations through an iterative process involving interviews and surveys. The panelists focused primarily on clinical applications for digital phenotyping for mental health but also included recommendations regarding transparency and data protection to address potential areas of misuse of digital phenotyping data outside of the health care domain.
RESULTS
The findings of this study showed strong agreement related to these ethical issues in the development of mental health applications of digital phenotyping: privacy, transparency, consent, accountability, and fairness. Consensus regarding the recommendation statements was strongest when the guidance was stated broadly enough to accommodate a range of potential applications. The privacy and data protection issues that the Delphi participants found particularly critical to address related to the perceived inadequacies of current regulations and frameworks for protecting sensitive personal information and the potential for sale and analysis of personal data outside of health systems.
CONCLUSIONS
The Delphi study found agreement on a number of ethical issues to prioritize in the development of digital phenotyping for mental health applications. The Delphi consensus statements identified general recommendations and principles regarding the ethical application of digital phenotyping to mental health. As digital phenotyping for mental health is implemented in clinical care, there remains a need for empirical research and consultation with relevant stakeholders to further understand and address relevant ethical issues.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34319252
pii: v9i7e27343
doi: 10.2196/27343
pmc: PMC8367187
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e27343Subventions
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : K01 MH118375
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
©Nicole Martinez-Martin, Henry T Greely, Mildred K Cho. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 28.07.2021.
Références
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 Mar-Apr;17(2):169-77
pubmed: 20190059
Curr Opin Biomed Eng. 2019 Mar;9:8-13
pubmed: 31650093
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Nov 30;20(1):310
pubmed: 33256715
HT ACM Conf Hypertext Soc Media. 2015 Sep;2015:139-148
pubmed: 26640831
J Law Med Ethics. 2020 Mar;48(1_suppl):196-226
pubmed: 32342752
PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20476
pubmed: 21694759
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Apr 5;2(4):e192542
pubmed: 31002321
P T. 2017 Sep;42(9):572-575
pubmed: 28890644
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016 Jun;41(7):1691-6
pubmed: 26818126
Front Artif Intell. 2021 Apr 15;3:561802
pubmed: 33981989
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 31;371(5):395-7
pubmed: 25075831
Front Psychiatry. 2020 May 15;11:432
pubmed: 32499729
Transl Psychiatry. 2017 Mar 7;7(3):e1053
pubmed: 28267146
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019 Sep;58(9):841-845
pubmed: 31445619
Depress Anxiety. 2018 Jul;35(7):601-608
pubmed: 29637663
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Dec 18;169(12):866-872
pubmed: 30508424
Arthroscopy. 2018 Feb;34(2):349-351
pubmed: 29413182
J Biomed Inform. 2018 Jan;77:120-132
pubmed: 29248628
AMA J Ethics. 2018 Sep 1;20(9):E804-811
pubmed: 30242810
Commun Biol. 2019 Oct 4;2:361
pubmed: 31602410
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Nov 6;21(11):e16399
pubmed: 31692450
Front Neurosci. 2018 Dec 18;12:945
pubmed: 30618574
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jul 20;20(7):e241
pubmed: 30030209
Front Psychol. 2020 Jul 15;11:1218
pubmed: 32760307
JMIR Ment Health. 2020 Oct 26;7(10):e21814
pubmed: 33031044
J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2013 Mar;38(2):75-7
pubmed: 23422052
Early Interv Psychiatry. 2019 Jun;13(3):707-714
pubmed: 30690896
J Nerv Ment Dis. 2019 Oct;207(10):893-896
pubmed: 31596769
Transl Psychiatry. 2021 Feb 11;11(1):121
pubmed: 33574229
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 Jan 8;7(1):5
pubmed: 33419484
BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar;28(3):231-237
pubmed: 30636200
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Jul;33(7):1139-47
pubmed: 25006139
Hum Genomics. 2018 Mar 5;12(1):12
pubmed: 29506557
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Sep 6;2:88
pubmed: 31508498
Front Psychiatry. 2020 May 27;11:473
pubmed: 32536882
West J Emerg Med. 2019 Jan;20(1):145-156
pubmed: 30643618
N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 15;378(11):981-983
pubmed: 29539284
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2017 May 8;13:23-47
pubmed: 28375728
JAMA. 2020 Sep 22;324(12):1212-1213
pubmed: 32960230
Nat Commun. 2019 Jul 23;10(1):3069
pubmed: 31337762
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018 Jan;43(1):225-226
pubmed: 29192659
Cerebrum. 2018 Nov 01;2018:
pubmed: 30746032
Nat Biotechnol. 2015 May;33(5):462-3
pubmed: 25965751
Psychol Med. 2020 Oct;50(13):2203-2212
pubmed: 31477195
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 May 20;16:56
pubmed: 27206853
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 30;9(12):e032255
pubmed: 31892655
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Dec 9;27(12):2020-2023
pubmed: 32574353
Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Apr;22(2):303-41
pubmed: 26002496
JAMA. 2017 Oct 3;318(13):1215-1216
pubmed: 28973224
Hum Mutat. 2012 May;33(5):777-80
pubmed: 22504886
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Jun 1;26(6):561-576
pubmed: 30908576
Mhealth. 2019 Aug 12;5:25
pubmed: 31559270
Physiol Meas. 2018 May 15;39(5):05TR01
pubmed: 29671754
Evid Based Ment Health. 2020 Nov;23(4):161-166
pubmed: 32998937
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Dec 9;27(12):2024-2027
pubmed: 32585698
World Psychiatry. 2018 Oct;17(3):276-277
pubmed: 30192103
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Mar 25;3:45
pubmed: 32219186
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 Feb 27;:
pubmed: 33647989
NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1:
pubmed: 31211249
Am J Psychiatry. 2000 Jan;157(1):67-74
pubmed: 10618015
Science. 2019 Oct 25;366(6464):447-453
pubmed: 31649194
PeerJ. 2016 Sep 29;4:e2537
pubmed: 28344895
Yearb Med Inform. 2019 Aug;28(1):128-134
pubmed: 31022752
Nat Med. 2021 Apr;27(4):582-584
pubmed: 33820998
NPJ Digit Med. 2018 Mar 28;1:10
pubmed: 31304295
World Psychiatry. 2020 Feb;19(1):114-115
pubmed: 31922662
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jun 15;8(6):e14116
pubmed: 32348252
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018 Jun;10(6):807-815
pubmed: 30025784
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Apr 7;3:53
pubmed: 32285013