MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964534932 · doi:10.1136/ebmental-2019-300093

Use of mobile apps and technologies in child and adolescent mental health: a systematic review

2019· review· en· W2964534932 on OpenAlexaff
Mallika Punukollu, Mafalda Marques

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychological interventionInclusion (mineral)The InternetSystematic reviewInclusion and exclusion criteriaMedicinePopulationPsychologyMEDLINEPsychiatryAlternative medicineWorld Wide WebComputer scienceEnvironmental healthSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: This review will aim to critically evaluate the currently available literature concerning the use of online mobile-based applications and interventions in the detection, management and maintenance of children and young people's mental health and well-being. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature search of six electronic databases was conducted for relevant publications until May 2019, with keywords pertaining to mental health, well-being and problems, mobile or internet apps or interventions and age of the study population. The resulting titles were screened and the remaining 92 articles were assessed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria with a total of 4 studies included in the final review. FINDINGS: In general, young people seem to engage very well with this type of tools, and they demonstrate some positive effects in emotional self-awareness. There have been some studies about this issue and many of the outcomes were notstatistically significant. However, it is still a sparsely documented area, and more research is needed in order to prove these effects. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health apps directed at young people have the potential to be important assessment, management and treatment tools, therefore creating easier access to health services, helping in the prevention of mental health issues and capacitating to self-help in case of need. However, a limited number of studies are currently available, and further assessments should be made in order to determine the outcomes of this type of interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations94
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207