A Process Evaluation of a Web-Based Mental Health Portal (WalkAlong) Using Google Analytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing amount of research on Web-based mental health interventions with proven efficacy, high attrition rates decrease their effectiveness. Continued process evaluations should be performed to maximize the target population's engagement. Google Analytics has been used to evaluate various health-related Web-based programs and may also be useful for Web-based mental health programs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate WalkAlong.ca, a youth-oriented mental health web-portal, using Google Analytics to inform the improvement strategy for the platform and to demonstrate the use of Google Analytics as a tool for process evaluation of Web-based mental health interventions. METHODS: Google Analytics was used to monitor user activity during WalkAlong's first year of operation (Nov 13, 2013-Nov 13, 2014). Selected Google Analytic variables were overall website engagement including pages visited per session, utilization rate of specific features, and user access mode and location. RESULTS: The results included data from 3076 users viewing 29,299 pages. Users spent less average time on Mindsteps (0 minute 35 seconds) and self-exercises (1 minute 08 seconds), which are important self-help tools, compared with that on the Screener tool (3 minutes 4 seconds). Of all visitors, 82.3% (4378/5318) were desktop users, followed by 12.7 % (677/5318) mobile phone and 5.0% (263/5318) tablet users. Both direct traffic (access via URL) and referrals by email had more than 7 pages viewed per session and longer than average time of 6 minutes per session. The majority of users (67%) accessed the platform from Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement and feature utilization rates are higher among people who receive personal invitations to visit the site. Low utilization rates with specific features offer a starting place for further exploration of users in order to identify the root cause. The data provided by Google Analytics, although informative, can be supplemented by other evaluation methods (ie, qualitative methods) in order to better determine the modifications required to improve user engagement. Google Analytics can play a vital role in highlighting the preferences of those using Web-based mental health tools.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".