↓ Skip to main content

Validity of single item responses to short message service texts to monitor depression: an mHealth sub-study of the UK ACUDep trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity of single item responses to short message service texts to monitor depression: an mHealth sub-study of the UK ACUDep trial
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0054-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ada Keding, Jan R. Böhnke, Tim J. Croudace, Stewart J. Richmond, Hugh MacPherson

Abstract

An increasing number of research designs are using text messaging (SMS) as a means of self-reported symptom and outcome monitoring in a variety of long-term health conditions, including severity ratings of depressed mood. The validity of such a single item SMS score to measure latent depression is not currently known and is vital if SMS data are to inform clinical evaluation in the future. A sub-set of depressed participants in the UK ACUDep trial submitted a single SMS text score (R-SMS-DS) between 1 and 9 on how depressed they felt around the same time as completing the PHQ-9 depression questionnaire on paper at 3 months follow-up of the trial. Exploratory categorical data factor analysis (EFA) was used to ascertain the alignment of R-SMS-DS scores with the factor structure of the PHQ-9. Any response bias with regard to age or gender was assessed by differential item functioning (DIF) analysis. Depression scores based on the PHQ-9 and R-SMS-DS at 3 months were available for 337 participants (74 % female; mean age: 42 years, SD = 11.1), 213 of which completed the two outcomes within 6 days of each other. R-SMS-DS scores aligned with the underlying latent depression of the PHQ-9 (factor loading of 0.656) and in particular its affective rather than somatic dimension. The R-SMS-DS score was most strongly correlated with depressed mood (r = 0.607), feeling bad about oneself (r = 0.588) and anhedonia (r = 0.573). R-SMS-DS responses were invariant with respect to gender (p = 0.302). However, there was some evidence for age related response bias (p = 0.031), with older participants being more likely to endorse lower R-SMS-DS scores than younger ones. The R-SMS-DS used in the ACUDep trial was found to be a valid measure of latent affective depression with no gender related response bias. This text message item may therefore represent a useful assessment and monitoring tool meriting evaluation in further research. For future study designs we recommend the collection of outcome data by new health technologies in combination with gold standard instruments to ensure concurrent validity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Spain 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 122 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Lecturer 6 5%
Other 31 24%
Unknown 27 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 25%
Psychology 18 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Computer Science 6 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 29 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,219,290
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,070
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,725
of 263,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#7
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.