Digital Mental Health Challenges and the Horizon Ahead for Solutions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The demand outstripping supply of mental health resources during the COVID-19 pandemic presents opportunities for digital technology tools to fill this new gap and, in the process, demonstrate capabilities to increase their effectiveness and efficiency. However, technology-enabled services have faced challenges in being sustainably implemented despite showing promising outcomes in efficacy trials since the early 2000s. The ongoing failure of these implementations has been addressed in reconceptualized models and frameworks, along with various efforts to branch out among disparate developers and clinical researchers to provide them with a key for furthering evaluative research. However, the limitations of traditional research methods in dealing with the complexities of mental health care warrant a diversified approach. The crux of the challenges of digital mental health implementation is the efficacy and evaluation of existing studies. Web-based interventions are increasingly used during the pandemic, allowing for affordable access to psychological therapies. However, a lagging infrastructure and skill base has limited the application of digital solutions in mental health care. Methodologies need to be converged owing to the rapid development of digital technologies that have outpaced the evaluation of rigorous digital mental health interventions and strategies to prevent mental illness. The functions and implications of human-computer interaction require a better understanding to overcome engagement barriers, especially with predictive technologies. Explainable artificial intelligence is being incorporated into digital mental health implementation to obtain positive and responsible outcomes. Investment in digital platforms and associated apps for real-time screening, tracking, and treatment offer the promise of cost-effectiveness in vulnerable populations. Although machine learning has been limited by study conduct and reporting methods, the increasing use of unstructured data has strengthened its potential. Early evidence suggests that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of incrementing such technology. The limitations of an evidence-based approach require better integration of decision support tools to guide policymakers with digital mental health implementation. There is a complex range of issues with effectiveness, equity, access, and ethics (eg, privacy, confidentiality, fairness, transparency, reproducibility, and accountability), which warrant resolution. Evidence-informed policies, development of eminent digital products and services, and skills to use and maintain these solutions are required. Studies need to focus on developing digital platforms with explainable artificial intelligence-based apps to enhance resilience and guide the treatment decisions of mental health practitioners. Investments in digital mental health should ensure their safety and workability. End users should encourage the use of innovative methods to encourage developers to effectively evaluate their products and services and to render them a worthwhile investment. Technology-enabled services in a hybrid model of care are most likely to be effective (eg, specialists using these services among vulnerable, at-risk populations but not severe cases of mental ill health).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,018 | 0,039 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,016 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,021 | 0,024 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,042 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».