Remote sensing mental health: A systematic review of factors essential to clinical translation from validation research

Abstract

Background Mental illness remains a major global health challenge largely due to the absence of definitive biomarkers applicable to diagnostics and care processes. Although remote sensing technologies, embedded in devices such as smartphones and wearables, offer a promising avenue for improved mental health assessments, their clinical integration has been slow. Objective This scoping review, following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, explores validation studies of remote sensing in clinical mental health populations, aiming to identify critical factors for clinical translation. Methods Comprehensive searches were conducted in six databases. The analysis, using narrative synthesis, examined clinical and socio-demographic characteristics of the populations studied, sensing purposes, temporal considerations and reference mental health assessments used for validation. Results The narrative synthesis of 50 included studies indicates that ten different sensor types have been studied for tracking and diagnosing mental illnesses, primarily focusing on physical activity and sleep patterns. There were many variations in the sensor methodologies used that may affect data quality and participant burden. Observation durations, and thus data resolution, varied by patient diagnosis. Currently, reference assessments predominantly rely on deficit focussed self-reports, and socio-demographic information is underreported, therefore representativeness of the general population is uncertain. Conclusion To fully harness the potential of remote sensing in mental health, issues such as reliance on self-reported assessments, and lack of socio-demographic context pertaining to generalizability need to be addressed. Striking a balance between resolution, data quality, and participant burden whilst clearly reporting limitations, will ensure effective technology use. The scant reporting on participants’ socio-demographic data suggests a knowledge gap in understanding the effectiveness of passive sensing techniques in disadvantaged populations.