Exploring Trade-Offs for Online Mental Health Matching: Agent-Based Modeling Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Online mental health communities (OMHCs) are an effective and accessible channel to give and receive social support for individuals with mental and emotional issues. However, a key challenge on these platforms is finding suitable partners to interact with given that mechanisms to match users are currently underdeveloped or highly naive. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we collaborated with one of the world's largest OMHCs; our contribution is to show the application of agent-based modeling for the design of online community matching algorithms. We developed an agent-based simulation framework and showcased how it can uncover trade-offs in different matching algorithms between people seeking support and volunteer counselors. METHODS: We used a comprehensive data set spanning January 2020 to April 2022 to create a simulation framework based on agent-based modeling that replicates the current matching mechanisms of our research site. After validating the accuracy of this simulated replication, we used this simulation framework as a "sandbox" to test different matching algorithms based on the deferred acceptance algorithm. We compared trade-offs among these different matching algorithms based on various metrics of interest, such as chat ratings and matching success rates. RESULTS: Our study suggests that various tensions emerge through different algorithmic choices for these communities. For example, our simulation uncovered that increased waiting time for support seekers was an inherent consequence on these sites when intelligent matching was used to find more suitable matches. Our simulation also verified some intuitive effects, such as that the greatest number of support seeker-counselor matches occurred using a "first come, first served" protocol, whereas relatively fewer matches occurred using a "last come, first served" protocol. We also discuss practical findings regarding matching for vulnerable versus overall populations. Results by demographic group revealed disparities-underaged and gender minority groups had lower average chat ratings and higher blocking rates on the site when compared to their majority counterparts, indicating the potential benefits of algorithmically matching them. We found that some protocols, such as a "filter"-based approach that matched vulnerable support seekers only with a counselor of their same demographic, led to improvements for these groups but resulted in lower satisfaction (-12%) among the overall population. However, this trade-off between minority and majority groups was not observed when using "topic" as a matching criterion. Topic-based matching actually outperformed the filter-based protocol among underaged people and led to significant improvements over the status quo among all minority and majority groups-specifically, a 6% average chat rating improvement and a decrease in blocking incidents from 5.86% to 4.26%. CONCLUSIONS: Agent-based modeling can reveal significant design considerations in the OMHC context, including trade-offs in various outcome metrics and the potential benefits of algorithmic matching for marginalized communities.
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 | 0,004 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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.
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 ».