Efficacy of Web-Based Collection of Strength-Based Testimonials for Text Message Extension of Youth Suicide Prevention Program: Randomized Controlled Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Equipping members of a target population to deliver effective public health messaging to peers is an established approach in health promotion. The Sources of Strength program has demonstrated the promise of this approach for "upstream" youth suicide prevention. Text messaging is a well-established medium for promoting behavior change and is the dominant communication medium for youth. In order for peer 'opinion leader' programs like Sources of Strength to use scalable, wide-reaching media such as text messaging to spread peer-to-peer messages, they need techniques for assisting peer opinion leaders in creating effective testimonials to engage peers and match program goals. We developed a Web interface, called Stories of Personal Resilience in Managing Emotions (StoryPRIME), which helps peer opinion leaders write effective, short-form messages that can be delivered to the target population in youth suicide prevention program like Sources of Strength. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of StoryPRIME, a Web-based interface for remotely eliciting high school peer leaders, and helping them produce high-quality, personal testimonials for use in a text messaging extension of an evidence-based, peer-led suicide prevention program. METHODS: In a double-blind randomized controlled experiment, 36 high school students wrote testimonials with or without eliciting from the StoryPRIME interface. The interface was created in the context of Sources of Strength-an evidence-based youth suicide prevention program-and 24 ninth graders rated these testimonials on relatability, usefulness/relevance, intrigue, and likability. RESULTS: Testimonials written with the StoryPRIME interface were rated as more relatable, useful/relevant, intriguing, and likable than testimonials written without StoryPRIME, P=.054. CONCLUSIONS: StoryPRIME is a promising way to elicit high-quality, personal testimonials from youth for prevention programs that draw on members of a target population to spread public health messages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".