MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4323648376 · doi:10.2196/43115

Mental Health Practitioners’ and Young People’s Experiences of Talking About Social Media During Mental Health Consultations: Qualitative Focus Group and Interview Study

2023· article· en· W4323648376 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jane Derges, Helen Bould, Rachael Gooberman‐Hill, Paul Moran, Myles-Jay Linton, Raphael Rifkin‐Zybutz, Lucy Biddle

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSocial Media in Health Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesArts and Humanities Research CouncilEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
Mots-clésMental healthFocus groupThematic analysisSocial mediaQualitative researchPsychologyMedicineNursingPsychiatrySociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Increasing concerns among mental health care professionals have focused on the impact of young people's use of digital technology and social media on their mental well-being. It has been recommended that the use of digital technology and social media be routinely explored during mental health clinical consultations with young people. Whether these conversations occur and how they are experienced by both clinicians and young people are currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore mental health practitioners' and young people's experiences of talking about young people's web-based activities related to their mental health during clinical consultations. Web-based activities include use of social media, websites, and messaging. Our aim was to identify barriers to effective communication and examples of good practice. In particular, we wanted to obtain the views of young people, who are underrepresented in studies, on their social media and digital technology use related to mental health. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups (11 participants across 3 groups) with young people aged 16 to 24 years and interviews (n=8) and focus groups (7 participants across 2 groups) with mental health practitioners in the United Kingdom. Young people had experience of mental health problems and support provided by statutory mental health services or third-sector organizations. Practitioners worked in children and young people's mental health services, statutory services, or third-sector organizations such as a university counseling service. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Practitioners and young people agreed that talking about young people's web-based activities and their impact on mental health is important. Mental health practitioners varied in their confidence in doing this and were keen to have more guidance. Young people said that practitioners seldom asked about their web-based activities, but when asked, they often felt judged or misunderstood. This stopped them from disclosing difficult web-based experiences and precluded useful conversations about web-based safety and how to access appropriate web-based support. Young people supported the idea of guidance or training for practitioners and were enthusiastic about sharing their experiences and being involved in the training or guidance provided to practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners would benefit from structured guidance and professional development to enable them to support young people in feeling more willing to disclose and talk about their web-based experiences and their impact on their mental health. This is reflected in practitioners' desire for guidance to improve their confidence and skills to safely support young people in navigating the challenges of the web-based world. Young people want to feel comfortable discussing their web-based activities during their consultations with mental health practitioners, both in tackling the challenges and using the opportunity to discuss their experiences, gain support, and develop coping strategies related to web-based safety.

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)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
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: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,137
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,217
Tête enseignante GPT0,566
Écart entre enseignants0,349 · 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'étudeQualitatif
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

Citations20
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Formative ResearchMême sujetSocial Media in Health EducationTravaux en français237 207