Use of Online Tools for Mental Health Among Racially and Ethnically Diverse College Students: Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression symptoms have been rising among college students, with many increasingly meeting the criteria for 1 or more mental health problems. Due to a rise in internet access and lockdown restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, online mediums, such as teletherapy, repositories for mental health information, discussion forums, self-help programs, and online screening tools, have become more popular and used by college students to support their mental health. However, there is limited information about individual-level factors that lead college students to use these online tools to support their mental health. OBJECTIVE: This mixed methods study aimed to examine the associations between demographics, symptom severity, mental health literacy, stigma, attitudes, and self-efficacy and the use of online tools to seek psychological information and services among racially and ethnically diverse college students. This study also aimed to qualitatively characterize types of online tools used, reasons for using tools or lack thereof, and perceived helpfulness of tools. METHODS: Undergraduate students (N=123) completed validated measures and provided open-ended descriptions of the types of online tools they used to seek psychological information and services and their reasons for using those tools. Logistic regression analyses were used to test associations of online tool use to seek mental health information and hypothesized predictors. Descriptive statistics were conducted to examine online tool types, reasons for using online tools, and helpfulness explanations. RESULTS: In total, 49.6% (61/123) of the participants used online tools (eg, search engines) to seek mental health information, while 30.1% (37/123) used online tools (eg, medical websites) to seek mental health services. Mental health literacy (P=.002; odds ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.05-1.24) was associated with greater use of online tools to seek mental health information. None of the hypothesized variables predicted online tool use to seek mental health services. In total, 82% (50/61) of participants who sought information found online tools somewhat helpful, while 49% (18/37) of participants who sought services found online tools very helpful. Of the students who did not use online tools to seek information, 19% (12/62) reported it was because they did not know which online tools to use and 31% (19/62) stated they would be encouraged to use online tools if it was recommended by professionals, therapists, family, or friends. Of the students who did not use online tools to seek services, 33% (28/86) reported it was because they did not think mental health help was necessary. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the use of online tools to provide mental health information and connect to professional services, suggesting that online tools are widely used to access mental health support.
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 | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».