↓ Skip to main content

Electronic self-monitoring of mood using IT platforms in adult patients with bipolar disorder: A systematic review of the validity and evidence

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
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
Electronic self-monitoring of mood using IT platforms in adult patients with bipolar disorder: A systematic review of the validity and evidence
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-0713-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Faurholt-Jepsen, Klaus Munkholm, Mads Frost, Jakob E. Bardram, Lars Vedel Kessing

Abstract

Various paper-based mood charting instruments are used in the monitoring of symptoms in bipolar disorder. During recent years an increasing number of electronic self-monitoring tools have been developed. The objectives of this systematic review were 1) to evaluate the validity of electronic self-monitoring tools as a method of evaluating mood compared to clinical rating scales for depression and mania and 2) to investigate the effect of electronic self-monitoring tools on clinically relevant outcomes in bipolar disorder. A systematic review of the scientific literature, reported according to the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library were searched and supplemented by hand search of reference lists. Databases were searched for 1) studies on electronic self-monitoring tools in patients with bipolar disorder reporting on validity of electronically self-reported mood ratings compared to clinical rating scales for depression and mania and 2) randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating electronic mood self-monitoring tools in patients with bipolar disorder. A total of 13 published articles were included. Seven articles were RCTs and six were longitudinal studies. Electronic self-monitoring of mood was considered valid compared to clinical rating scales for depression in six out of six studies, and in two out of seven studies compared to clinical rating scales for mania. The included RCTs primarily investigated the effect of heterogeneous electronically delivered interventions; none of the RCTs investigated the sole effect of electronic mood self-monitoring tools. Methodological issues with risk of bias at different levels limited the evidence in the majority of studies. Electronic self-monitoring of mood in depression appears to be a valid measure of mood in contrast to self-monitoring of mood in mania. There are yet few studies on the effect of electronic self-monitoring of mood in bipolar disorder. The evidence of electronic self-monitoring is limited by methodological issues and by a lack of RCTs. Although the idea of electronic self-monitoring of mood seems appealing, studies using rigorous methodology investigating the beneficial as well as possible harmful effects of electronic self-monitoring are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 167 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 18%
Researcher 30 18%
Student > Master 27 16%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 20 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 54 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 16%
Computer Science 16 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Neuroscience 8 5%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 28 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 15 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,872,792
of 18,226,033 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,047
of 3,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,761
of 380,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#71
of 301 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,226,033 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 380,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 301 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.