The authors of the Target article, Shen and colleagues (2024) argue that there is a need for an ethical framework to help analyze when it is appropriate to return individualized research results (I...

Shen et al. (2024) have articulated the many opportunities as well as notable challenges associated with the emerging practice of returning individual research results (IRR) specific to digital phe...

In their thoughtful paper, Shen et al. (2024) discuss optimal solutions to address the challenge of returning individual research results from digital phenotyping in psychiatry. Their conclusion to...

We applaud Shen et al. (2024) for offering a framework to address how to return research results from digital phenotyping within the discipline of psychiatry. However, given the value-laden nature...

The integration of digital phenotyping in psychiatry promises unprecedented insights into mental health, particularly in college settings where mental well-being is a growing concern. The COVID-19...

While the intellectual challenge of digital phenotyping (DP) has evolved from data collection to more complex data analysis (Onnela 2021), core ethical considerations remain centered on patient pri...

Shen et al. (2024) provide a valuable framework for returning IRRs from digital phenotyping (hereafter IRRs) and note its potential for negative effects (through fueling public- and/or self-stigma)...

Mental health-related data generated by app users during the routine use of Consumer Mental Health Apps (CMHAs) are being increasingly leveraged for research and product improvement studies. However, it remains unclear which ethical safeguards and practices should be implemented by researchers and app developers to protect users during these studies, and concerns have been raised over their current implementation in CMHAs. To better understand which ethical safeguards and practices are implemented, why and how, 17 app developers and researchers were interviewed (...) who had been involved in using CMHA data for studies. Interviewees discussed the impact on stakeholder interests, sufficiency thresholds and procedural alterations of informed consent, data protection, gathering app user perspectives and representing users in app design and study conduct, and ensuring adequate support. Although the reasoning behind how and why these ethical safeguards and practices should be implemented showed considerable variability and several gaps, interviewees converged on various general lines of reasoning. This allowed for the development of a coherent and nuanced account that could prove useful for future CMHA studies and which could stimulate further normative investigation of the role of ethical safeguards and practices in these studies. (shrink)

Shen et al.'s (2024) novel 3 × 3 ethical framework aims to facilitate “study-by-study decisions about returning individual research results (IRRs) from digital phenotyping in psychiatry.” The frame...