Cited by 77Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

The Role of Data Type and Recipient in Individuals’ Perspectives on Sharing Passively Collected Smartphone Data for Mental Health: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study

Open access
Nicholas, Jennifer, Shilton, Katie, Schueller, Stephen M, Gray, Elizabeth L, Kwasny, Mary J, Mohr, David C·2019·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The growing field of personal sensing harnesses sensor data collected from individuals' smartphones to understand their behaviors and experiences. Such data could be a powerful tool within mental health care. However, it is important to note that the nature of these data differs from the information usually available to, or discussed with, health care professionals. To design digital mental health tools that are acceptable to users, understanding how personal sensing data can be used and shared is critical. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate individuals' perspectives about sharing different types of sensor data beyond the research context, specifically with doctors, electronic health record (EHR) systems, and family members. METHODS: A questionnaire assessed participants' comfort with sharing six types of sensed data: physical activity, mood, sleep, communication logs, location, and social activity. Participants were asked about their comfort with sharing these data with three different recipients: doctors, EHR systems, and family members. A series of principal component analyses (one for each data recipient) was performed to identify clusters of sensor data types according to participants' comfort with sharing them. Relationships between recipients and sensor clusters were then explored using generalized estimating equation logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 211 participants completed the questionnaire. The majority were female (171/211, 81.0%), and the mean age was 38 years (SD 10.32). Principal component analyses consistently identified two clusters of sensed data across the three data recipients: "health information," including sleep, mood, and physical activity, and "personal data," including communication logs, location, and social activity. Overall, participants were significantly more comfortable sharing any type of sensed data with their doctor than with the EHR system or family members (P<.001) and more comfortable sharing "health information" than "personal data" (P<.001). Participant characteristics such as age or presence of depression or anxiety did not influence participants' comfort with sharing sensed data. CONCLUSIONS: The comfort level in sharing sensed data was dependent on both data type and recipient, but not individual characteristics. Given the identified differences in comfort with sensed data sharing, contextual factors of data type and recipient appear to be critically important as we design systems that harness sensor data for mental health treatment and support.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/12578

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a study by Nicholas et al, participants were more comfortable with health information (sleep, mood) being recorded than personal data (social activity, communication logs) being recorded.

    “and in a study by Nicholas et al [234], participants were more comfortable with health information being recorded such as sleep and mood than personal data being recorded such as social activity and communication logs.”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [234]

    The Discussion (Principal Findings) says participants were more comfortable sharing sleep and mood data than communication logs and social activity data. The Methods specify that the questionnaire measured comfort with sharing sensed data with doctors, electronic health record systems, or family members—not comfort with the data being recorded. The claimed preference between data types is supported, but its framing as recording is not. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In 2 studies, participants were uncomfortable about their physical location being recorded.

    “In 2 studies, participants were uncomfortable about their physical location being recorded [180,234]”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [234]

    The Results (Sensor Data Sharing) and Discussion (Principal Findings) show that location was among the data types participants were least comfortable sharing, with comfort varying by recipient. The Methods (Measures) specify that the questionnaire asked about sharing sensed location data, not whether participants were uncomfortable with their location being recorded. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Individuals with mental health difficulties have varied feelings about sharing data, depending on the recipient and type of data shared.

    “Research has shown that individuals with mental health difficulties have varied feelings about sharing data, depending on the recipient and type of data shared (Nicholas et al. 2019).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [13]Doryab A Min J Wiese J Zimmerman J Hong J Detection of Behavior Change in People with Depression 2014 AAAI workshop: Modern Artificial Intelligence for Health Analytics Jul 27-28 Quebec, Canada
  2. [23]Klasnja P Consolvo S Choudhury T Beckwith R Hightower J Exploring Privacy Concerns About Personal Sensing 2009 Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Pervasive Computing May 11-14 Nara, Japan
  3. [39]Beckwith R Mainwaring S Privacy: Personal information, threats, and technologies 2005 Proceedings International Symposium on Technology and Society, 2005 Weapons and Wires: Prevention and Safety in a Time of Fear ISTAS Jun 8-10 Los Angeles, CA
  4. [40]Marwick A Boyd D Understanding Privacy at the Margins International Journal of Communication 2018 12 1157 65

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nicholas, J., Shilton, K., Schueller, S. M., Gray, E. L., Kwasny, M. J., & Mohr, D. C.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Corresponding author
Nicholas, Jennifer
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2019-04-05
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
e12578
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2911992314
Cited by
77
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5
FWCI
15.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001422)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P20MH090318, R01MH111610)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
smartphone sensor data, digital phenotyping, data sharing, mental health, data types, trust in physicians, electronic health records, family members, physical activity, sleep, mood, location data, communication logs, social activity, digital mental health, data privacy
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Confidentiality, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Information Storage and Retrieval, Privacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review