MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914508493 · doi:10.1177/0840470418818583

E-mental health: Promising advancements in policy, research, and practice

2019· review· en· W2914508493 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shalini Lal

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthThe InternetHealth careScale (ratio)Social mediaPublic relationsField (mathematics)Health policyBusinessPsychologyMedicineNursingPolitical scienceComputer sciencePublic healthPsychiatryWorld Wide WebGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing need for mental health services in the population is posing significant challenges for the health system. It is therefore important to identify new approaches to delivering care that are sustainable and scalable in terms of reach and impact. E-mental health is one approach that shows promise in addressing the treatment gap in mental healthcare. E-mental health involves leveraging the Internet and related technologies such as smartphone apps, web sites, and social media to deliver mental health services. Over the past decade, this field has made significant advancements in Canada and internationally. In this article, the author introduces the e-mental health field and provides an overview of promising Canadian developments in relation to policy, research, and practice. In addition, the article discusses some of the challenges facing the wide-scale implementation of e-mental health and identifies priority areas of focus for health leaders to advance the field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.336
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207