Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jul 28;9(7):e27343.
doi: 10.2196/27343.

Ethical Development of Digital Phenotyping Tools for Mental Health Applications: Delphi Study

Affiliations

Ethical Development of Digital Phenotyping Tools for Mental Health Applications: Delphi Study

Nicole Martinez-Martin et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. .

Abstract

Background: Digital phenotyping (also known as personal sensing, intelligent sensing, or body computing) involves the collection of biometric and personal data in situ from digital devices, such as smartphones, wearables, or social media, to measure behavior or other health indicators. The collected data are analyzed to generate moment-by-moment quantification of a person's mental state and potentially predict future mental states. Digital phenotyping projects incorporate data from multiple sources, such as electronic health records, biometric scans, or genetic testing. As digital phenotyping tools can be used to study and predict behavior, they are of increasing interest for a range of consumer, government, and health care applications. In clinical care, digital phenotyping is expected to improve mental health diagnoses and treatment. At the same time, mental health applications of digital phenotyping present significant areas of ethical concern, particularly in terms of privacy and data protection, consent, bias, and accountability.

Objective: This study aims to develop consensus statements regarding key areas of ethical guidance for mental health applications of digital phenotyping in the United States.

Methods: We used a modified Delphi technique to identify the emerging ethical challenges posed by digital phenotyping for mental health applications and to formulate guidance for addressing these challenges. Experts in digital phenotyping, data science, mental health, law, and ethics participated as panelists in the study. The panel arrived at consensus recommendations through an iterative process involving interviews and surveys. The panelists focused primarily on clinical applications for digital phenotyping for mental health but also included recommendations regarding transparency and data protection to address potential areas of misuse of digital phenotyping data outside of the health care domain.

Results: The findings of this study showed strong agreement related to these ethical issues in the development of mental health applications of digital phenotyping: privacy, transparency, consent, accountability, and fairness. Consensus regarding the recommendation statements was strongest when the guidance was stated broadly enough to accommodate a range of potential applications. The privacy and data protection issues that the Delphi participants found particularly critical to address related to the perceived inadequacies of current regulations and frameworks for protecting sensitive personal information and the potential for sale and analysis of personal data outside of health systems.

Conclusions: The Delphi study found agreement on a number of ethical issues to prioritize in the development of digital phenotyping for mental health applications. The Delphi consensus statements identified general recommendations and principles regarding the ethical application of digital phenotyping to mental health. As digital phenotyping for mental health is implemented in clinical care, there remains a need for empirical research and consultation with relevant stakeholders to further understand and address relevant ethical issues.

Keywords: Delphi study; artificial intelligence; digital mental health; digital phenotyping; ethics; machine learning; mental health; mobile phone; neuroethics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Delphi study overview.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Insel TR. Digital phenotyping: technology for a new science of behavior. J Am Med Assoc. 2017 Oct 3;318(13):1215–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11295. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Spinazze P, Rykov Y, Bottle A, Car J. Digital phenotyping for assessment and prediction of mental health outcomes: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 30;9(12):e032255. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032255. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=31892655 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Robinson PN. Deep phenotyping for precision medicine. Hum Mutat. 2012 May;33(5):777–80. doi: 10.1002/humu.22080. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Martinez-Martin N, Insel TR, Dagum P, Greely HT, Cho MK. Data mining for health: staking out the ethical territory of digital phenotyping. NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1:-. doi: 10.1038/s41746-018-0075-8. doi: 10.1038/s41746-018-0075-8. - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Huckvale K, Venkatesh S, Christensen H. Toward clinical digital phenotyping: a timely opportunity to consider purpose, quality, and safety. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:88. doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0166-1. doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0166-1. - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types