Deriving a practical framework for the evaluation of health apps Data collected Data storage Deleting personal data Personal health information Security measures in place Privacy policy Business model Credibility Medical claims Technical Costs and advertising Stability Clinical validity User feedback supporting Level 1 Background info Level 2 Privacy and security Level 3 Evidence based Level 4 Ease of use Level 5 Data integration

As the potential of smartphone apps and sensors for healthcare and clinical research continues to expand, there is a concomitant need for open, accessible, and scalable digital tools. While many current app platforms offer useful solutions for either clinicians or patients, fewer seek to serve both and support the therapeutic relationship between them. Thus, we aimed to create a novel smartphone platform at the intersection of patient demands for trust, control, and community and clinician demands for transparent, data driven, and translational tools. The resulting LAMP platform has evolved through numerous iterations and with much feedback from patients, designers, sociologists, advocates, clinicians, researchers, app developers, and philanthropists. As an open and free tool, the LAMP platform continues to evolve as reflected in its current diverse use cases across research and clinical care in psychiatry, neurology, anesthesia, and psychology. In this paper, we explore the motivation, features, current progress, and next steps to pair the platform for use in a new digital psychiatry clinic, to advance digital interventions for youth mental health, and to bridge gaps in available mental health care for underserved patient groups. The code for the LAMP platform is freely shared with this paper to encourage others to adapt and improve on our team's efforts.

The first part of this paper makes five points: First, the problem of Otherness is different and differently constructed in modern differentiated societies. Therefore, approaches to Otherness based on traditional notions of difference and boundary between societies and systems of shared belief will not suffice; Second, because solidarity can no longer be maintained through boundaries between ingroup and outgroup, social cohesion has to take a different form; Third, to the extent that Otherness is not a condition of demographic, or belief based, exclusion in modern societies, but rather something that happens to people otherwise available to one another in interaction, othering is a process that occurs over the course of interaction, turn by turn, not a set of beliefs or a state of mind; Fourth, othering may be supported by accounts and narratives, and these may exist before the fact -or be articulated after the fact. But, over the course of an ongoing interaction, beliefs and narratives do not explain what goes wrong with practices; Fifth, practices require reciprocity and trust. Therefore, practices require a more stringent form of morality -not a less stringent form -and more social cohesion -not lessthan traditional society.The second part of the paper illustrates these five points with an extended analysis of a cross-race interaction in which accounts are invoked, reciprocity breaks down, and participants are rendered as Accountable Others.

Regardless of whether a project team is located in the same workplace or distributed around the world, trust remains an important element deemed necessary to facilitate knowledge sharing and collaborative work. At the same time, distribution across sites presents challenges to trust building that are not present among co-located teams. A further complicating factor in trust building among distributed teams is national culture. As we demonstrate, the impact of nationality can be increased when organizations put the distributed sites in a competitive frame. Using the Newell and Swan threefold typology of trust, this paper analyzes trust among IT work teams whose members are located at sites that are distributed in the United States, Ireland, and India. Our case analysis confirms the problematic nature of trust building among globally distributed teams. Specifically, we found that due to situational factors and sociopsychological dynamics an 'Us versus Them' attitude prevails among the distributed sites. This paper concludes that the traditional approaches used by organizations to address the challenges of global collaboration are insufficient and that trust building in an organizational setting requires project managers to actively work on relationship management to minimize the impact of an inter-group perspective.

No abstract