Home stay reflects symptoms severity in major depressive disorder: A multicenter observational study using geolocation data from smartphones

Study population

Analysed participants were recruited to the RADAR-MDD study from November 2017 to November 2019. In addition, recruited participants were aged ≥ 18 years and had experienced at least two episodes of MDD in their lifetime, with the most recent within the last two years. The exclusion criteria included: lifetime history of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, MDD with psychotic features, schizoaffective disorders; history of moderate to severe drug or alcohol dependence within six months prior to enrollment; history of a major medical disease which could impact upon the patient’s ability to participate in normal daily activities for more than two weeks; dementia; pregnancy. No limitations were applied regarding any treatment that the participants were receiving over the course of the study. Written consent was obtained previous to the enrollment session followed by collection of sociodemographic, social environment, medical history and technology use questionnaires, and the Lifetime Depression Assessment Self-Report (LIDAS; Bot et al. 2017). The participants with MDD were recruited at three clinical sites: King’s College London (KCL) in the UK, Vrije Universiteit Medisch Centrum (VUMC) in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red (CIBER) in Barcelona, Spain (Table 1; Supplementary Table 1). More details on the study protocol can be found in Matcham et al. (2019).

Data collection

We used the RADAR-base platform for data collection and storage (http://radar-base.org/; Ranjan et al. 2019). Participants with MDD were required to install several apps on their smartphones. The participants without a smartphone or with a non-Android device were provided with an Android smartphone and were required to use it throughout the study (Matcham et al. 2019). Remote monitoring technology (RMT) apps were used to collect data on participant severity of experienced MDD symptoms, self-esteem, cognitive functioning, voice audio sampling and brief in-the-moment assessments of daily life experiences. Specifically, every two weeks the participants were requested to fill in the PHQ-8 questionnaire in the RADAR-base active RMT app. The request notifications were sent out at a calendared time and remained active only on that day initially. The completion window was increased to three days to improve completion rates in April 2019.

The passive RMT apps ran in the background and required minimal input from participants. They collected data on participant physical (e.g., transitions in space) and socially relevant activity (e.g., number and duration of calls) as well as on some ambient factors (e.g., ambient noise and light). GPS location data were obfuscated by adding a fixed random number to the latitude and longitude of all GPS data points generated by a single participant (Figure 1). Accuracy of each acquired GPS data point, as provided by either a mobile network operator or GPS satellites, corresponded to one standard deviation of a bivariate normal distribution with equal variances along the two spatial dimensions centered at that point. GPS data points with the accuracy of larger than 20 meters were discarded from analyses (Supplementary Table 2). Sampling period of the GPS signal was set to either 5 (Depp et al. 2019; Saeb et al. 2015, 2016) or 10 (Barnett et al. 2018; Farhan et al. 2016a, 2016b) minutes throughout the study. However, the effective sampling period varied over time due to occasional signal loss and battery drain (i.e., signal undersampling). Other factors affecting the sampling period included occasional concurrent and asynchronous acquisition of geolocation data from both a mobile network operator and GPS satellites (i.e., signal oversampling).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Exemplar geolocation data of a single study participant.

GPS data were pooled over an exemplar biweekly segment. A single dot indicates a single acquired GPS location data point. The red dots denote individual’s home location, whereas the remaining dots are colored in green.

A single completed PHQ-8 questionnaire combined with the GPS data acquired over the two preceding weeks and obtained from the same participant is herein referred to as a biweekly segment. To ensure a high quality of the analyzed geolocation data, only biweekly segments that met the following criteria were analyzed: 14 days of GPS recordings available, and a daily median sampling period of the GPS signal ≤ 11 minutes, and the daily number of acquired GPS data points ≥ 48. The cut-off values were selected to maximize the volume of data available for analysis while preserving high quality of these data (Supplementary Tables 2, 3 and 4). Participants who declared their occupational status as a volunteer, student, caregiver, full- or part-time employee, or self-employed person were considered to be “employed”, while all other participants were considered to be “unemployed”. To avoid interference of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, only data collected before 1 January 2020 were analyzed.

For each day in a biweekly segment we computed the number of GPS data points collected for each of the 24 hours separately and over the entire day. Ideally, a GPS signal sampled uniformly at a period of 5 minutes would give 12 GPS data points an hour and a total of 288 GPS data points a day. We specified completeness of the daily data as a ratio between the actual number of GPS data points collected over a day and the expected one, as determined by a sampling period, with the values of 0 and 1 corresponding to an empty and a complete day of GPS recordings, respectively (Supplementary Table 5). Supplementary Figure 1 shows median data completeness for each hour in a day across the analyzed biweekly segments. Similarly, we divided the actual number of GPS data points collected per hour by the expected one and computed the standard deviation of these 24 normalized values to characterize sampling constancy of the daily data. Any positive value for sampling constancy indicates fluctuations in the volume of GPS data acquired throughout a day, with greater values indicating greater fluctuations (Supplementary Table 6). Median completeness and median sampling constancy of the daily data, as computed across 14 days of a biweekly segment, were used to characterize the quality of GPS recordings acquired for that segment.

Home stay

Home location was identified in a stepwise manner. Initially, home location was approximated by the median longitude and latitude of all GPS data points in a biweekly segment acquired between 12 am and 6 am (Chow et al. 2017; Saeb et al. 2015, 2016). To account for accidental travel and outdoor stay, all GPS data points acquired during these hours and separated by > 60 meters from the initial home location were discarded. Home location was finally determined as the median longitude and latitude of all the remaining GPS data points (Figure 1). Distance between any two GPS data points i and j was computed using the Haversine WGS84 formula as follows (Depp et al. 2019): where ϕ and λ correspond to the latitude and longitude, respectively.

Home stay for a given day was specified as a ratio between the number of GPS data points separated by ≤ 60 meters from home location and the total number of GPS data points acquired on that day. Home stay values of 0 (or 0%) and 1 (or 100%) correspond to an entire day spent outside versus at home, respectively. Median home stay, as computed across 14 days of a biweekly segment, was used to characterize home stay of a study participant for that segment (Supplementary Table 7).

Statistical analysis

A linear regression model was selected to test for a relationship between home stay and overall severity of the MDD symptoms. Specifically, home stay was used as a dependent variable, with PHQ-8 total score being used as an independent variable. Participant age at enrolment, gender (male versus female), occupational status (employed versus unemployed), median completeness and sampling constancy of the daily data in a biweekly segment were included in the model as additional explanatory variables: We chose home stay as a dependent variable to test its relationship not only to the severity of MDD symptoms but also to participant’s demographics and quality characteristics of the collected geolocation data in a single model in a uniform manner. For each study participant we randomly selected one of the biweekly segments generated by that participant. The model was fitted using data of the biweekly segments pooled across the participants. To obtain a confidence interval for each of the six regression coefficients, the procedure of random selection of a biweekly segment per participant followed by pooling data across the participants and fitting the model was repeated 100 times. A model parameter was deemed to be significantly related to home stay if a 95% two-sided confidence interval obtained for the regression coefficient of that parameter did not include 0. The model was fitted using data of all three sites combined (Table 2) and each clinical site separately (Supplementary Table 8).

To test whether a relationship between home stay and the independent variables differed between weekdays and weekends, a similar approach to that above was followed. Specifically, home stay, median completeness and sampling constancy of the daily data in a biweekly segment were estimated separately for the weekdays and weekends. As a single biweekly segment included ten weekdays and only four weekend days, we used four days to generate those estimates in order to equalize variance in the estimates of weekdays and weekends. For each analyzed biweekly segment we randomly drew four weekdays 100 times. Medians of the estimates computed for each of these 100 draws were used to characterize weekdays of that segment in the model.

To account for non-normality of both dependent and independent variables as well as for differences in their variance, each variable (except for gender and occupational status) was standardized by applying the Yeo-Johnson transformation followed by the zero-mean, unit-variance normalization. All models and findings reported throughout the manuscript were obtained by using these “standardized” data. Note, however, that qualitatively similar results were obtained when using original, non-standardized data (Supplementary Table 9).

Dataset characteristics

As of January 1, 2020, the total number of participants enrolled in the RADAR-MDD study across the three clinical sites was 432 (Supplementary Table 1). Of those, 401 (92.8%) participants had usable PHQ-8 and geolocation data (Table 1), resulting in a total of 4,273 biweekly segments generated across the sites (Supplementary Table 2). After discarding GPS data points with low accuracy (> 20 meters) and selecting only biweekly segments with 14 days of GPS recordings available, the number of biweekly segments reduced to 1,876 (43.9%; Supplementary Table 2). Imposing additional requirements on the daily median sampling period (≤ 11 minutes; Supplementary Table 3) and the daily minimum volume (≥ 48 data points; Supplementary Table 4) of the GPS data in a single biweekly segment further reduced the number of biweekly segments available for analysis to 769 (18.0%; Table 1). The latter corresponded to the data of 164 (38.0%) study participants. Table 1 lists the demographic characteristics of those participants, whereas Figure 2c shows the distribution of their ages. The majority of the study participants enrolled at each clinical site were females (range: 68.4 – 82.4%; Table 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Distributions of dataset characteristics.

(a) Number of biweekly segments available for analysis per study participant. (b) PHQ-8 total score. (c) Participant age. Data were pooled across the three clinical sites. The distributions for each individual clinical site and occupational status are presented in Supplementary Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Statistics on each presented dataset characteristic is reported in Table 1.

The number of biweekly segments available for analysis varied considerably across the sites, with VUMC (n = 64 segments or 8.3% of the total; Table 1) and KCL (n = 483 or 62.8%) providing the least and most data, respectively. The number of biweekly segments produced by a single participant varied between 1 and 19, with the median equalling 4 (25^th-75^th percentiles: 2 – 7; Figure 2a). As can be seen in Figure 2b, the collected data represented all five severity categories of MDD, as specified in the PHQ-8 questionnaire (Kroenke et al. 2009), including “none-minimal” (PHQ-8 total score from 0 to 4: n = 138 segments or 18.0% of the total), “mild” (from 5 to 9: n = 214 or 27.8%%), “moderate” (from 10 to 14: n = 166 or 21.6%), “moderately severe” (from 15 to 19: n = 152 or 19.8%), and “severe” (from 20 to 24: n = 99 or 12.8%).

Estimates of home stay

Over the course of the study, we can infer that participants spent most of their time at home. When no distinction between weekdays and weekends was made, median home stay across the sites was 89% (25^th-75^th percentiles: 76% – 96%; Figure 3a). As expected, home stay was lower during weekdays as compared to weekends (Figure 3b, c). Specifically, median home stay across the sites was 87% (25^th-75^th percentiles: 74% – 95%) and 93% (25^th-75^th percentiles: 82% – 98%) when analysing data of weekdays and weekends, respectively. These observations were consistent across each clinical site (Supplementary Table 7; Supplementary Figure 4).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Home stay computed (a) over the entire week, (b) for weekdays and (c) weekends only.

A grey horizontal bar and a cross in each boxplot indicate median and mean of the presented data. Data were pooled across the three clinical sites. The distributions for each individual clinical site are presented in Supplementary Figure 4.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Relationship (a, b, c) between home stay and participant age, and (d, e, f) between home stay and the PHQ-8 total score, as assessed using data of (a, d) the entire week, (b, e) weekdays and (c, f) weekends only.

Each dot indicates a single biweekly segment. Data of all biweekly segments pooled across the three clinical sites are presented. A black line in each panel corresponds to the linear fit of the presented data.

Similarly, home stay was affected by occupational status. The employed participants spent less time at home as compared to their unemployed peers. Median home stay across the sites was 82% (25^th-75^th percentiles: 67% – 92%) and 94% (25^th-75^th percentiles: 85% – 98%) for the employed and unemployed participants, respectively, with the difference being more prominent during weekdays (79% versus 93%) as compared to weekends (88% versus 96%). The same pattern of observations was seen across each clinical site (Supplementary Table 7; Supplementary Figure 5).

Associations with home stay

When data were pooled across the sites and no distinction between weekdays and weekends was made, the linear regression model revealed a significant relationship between home stay and overall severity of the MDD symptoms, as captured by the PHQ-8 total score (95% two-sided confidence interval (CI) versus median: 0.015 – 0.184 versus 0.100; Table 2; Figure 4d). The latter suggests that greater overall severity of the MDD symptoms was associated with prolonged home stay. The same relationship was observed when analysing data of weekdays only (CI versus median: 0.023 – 0.178 versus 0.098; Figure 4e) but not of weekends (−0.079 – 0.149 versus 0.052; Figure 4f).

In addition, the model also revealed a significant relationship between home stay and age. Specifically, the participants spent more at home with age (CI versus median: 0.161 – 0.325 versus 0.241; Table 2; Figure 4a). Similar strength of the relationship was observed for weekdays (CI versus median: 0.188 – 0.329 versus 0.254; Figure 4b) and weekends (0.029 – 0.240 versus 0.148; Figure 4c). Furthermore, occupational status was also found to significantly modulate home stay, with the employed participants spending less time at home compared to their unemployed peers (CI versus median: −0.631 – −0.279 versus −0.448; Table 2). Similar to age, there was no significant difference in the effect of occupational status on home stay between the analyzed time frames (CI versus median, weekdays only: −0.664 – −0.354 versus −0.495; weekends only: −0.535 – −0.127 versus −0.323).

Neither gender nor median completeness and sampling constancy of the daily data in a biweekly segment had a significant impact on home stay, and this held for all the analyzed time frames (Table 2). The results of modelling for each individual clinical site obtained with standardized and original data can be found in Supplementary Tables 8 and 9, respectively.