MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4308635655 · doi:10.2196/42031

Engagement, Use, and Impact of Digital Mental Health Resources for Diverse Populations in COVID-19: Community-Partnered Evaluation

2022· article· en· W4308635655 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenneth B. Wells, April D. Thames, Alexander S. Young, Lily Zhang, MarySue V. Heilemann, Daniela Flores Romero, Adrian Oliva, Felica Jones, Lingqi Tang, Melissa J. Brymer, T.S.J. Elliott, Armen C. Arevian

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueDigital Mental Health Interventions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesUniversity of California, DavisUniversity of Pennsylvania
Mots-clésMental healthLesbianTransgenderAnxietyEthnic groupPsychologyPandemicPublic healthHealth equityMedicineGerontologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychiatryNursingPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic increased disparities for communities burdened by structural barriers such as reduced affordable housing, with mental health consequences. Limited data are available on digital resources for public mental health prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to evaluate engagement in and impact of free digital resources on the Together for Wellness/Juntos por Nuestro Bienestar (T4W/Juntos) website during COVID-19 in California. METHODS: A pilot evaluation of T4W/Juntos was performed, with partner agencies inviting providers, clients, and partners to visit the website and complete surveys at baseline (September 20, 2021, to April 4, 2022) and at 4-6-week follow-up (October 22, 2021, to May 17, 2022). Website use was assessed by three engagement items (ease of use, satisfaction, relevance), comfort in use, and use of six resource categories. Primary outcomes at follow-up were depression and anxiety (scores≥3 on Patient Health Questionnaire-2 item [PHQ2] and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 item [GAD2] scales). Secondary outcomes were post-pre differences in PHQ2 and GAD2 scores, and use of behavioral health hotlines and services the month before follow-up. RESULTS: Of 366 eligible participants, 315 (86.1%) completed baseline and 193 (61.3%) completed follow-up surveys. Of baseline participants, 72.6% identified as female, and 21.3% identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and others (LGBTQ+). In terms of ethnicity, 44.0% identified as Hispanic, 17.8% as African American, 26.9% as non-Hispanic white, and 11.4% as other ethnicity. Overall, 32.7% had moderate anxiety or depression (GAD2/PHQ2≥3) at baseline. Predictors of baseline website engagement included being Hispanic versus other race/ethnicity (β=.27, 95% CI .10-.44; P=.002) and number of COVID-19-related behavior changes (β=.09, 95% CI .05-.13; P<.001). Predictors of comfort using the website were preferring English for website use (odds ratio [OR] 5.57, 95% CI 2.22-13.96; P<.001) and COVID-19-related behavior changes (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.12-1.66; P=.002); receiving overnight behavioral health treatment in the prior 6 months (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.69, P=.015) was associated with less comfort in website use. The main predictor of depression at follow-up (PHQ2≥3) was baseline depression (OR 6.24, 95% CI 2.77-14.09; P<.001). Engagement in T4W/Juntos was associated with lower likelihood of depression (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.86; P=.01). Website use the month before follow-up was associated with a post-pre reduction in PHQ2 score (β=-.62, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.20; P=.004). The main predictor of GAD2≥3 at follow-up was baseline GAD2≥3 (OR 13.65, 95% CI 6.06-30.72; P<.001). Greater baseline website engagement predicted reduced hotline use (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.71; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity/language and COVID-19-related behavior changes were associated with website engagement; engagement and use predicted reduced follow-up depression and behavioral hotline use. Findings are based on participants recommended by community agencies with moderate follow-up rates; however, significance was similar when weighting for nonresponse. This study may inform research and policy on digital mental health prevention resources.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,556
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,556
Tête enseignante GPT0,632
Écart entre enseignants0,076 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations15
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Formative ResearchMême sujetDigital Mental Health InterventionsTravaux en français237 207