A Web-Based Intervention for Young Adults Whose Parents Have a Mental Illness or Substance Use Concern: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One in 5 young people grow up in a family where one parent has experienced a mental health problem or substance use concern. Compared with their same-aged peers, these youth are at a higher risk of academic failure and acquiring a substance abuse and/or mental health issue. There is a paucity of accessible, age-appropriate interventions that address their needs. OBJECTIVE: A 6-week, web-based intervention, "mental illness: supported, preventative, online, targeted" (mi.spot), was developed based on previous research and the competence enhancement model. This paper describes the protocol for a randomized controlled trial and details how the usage, safety, acceptability, and feasibility of the intervention will be determined. METHODS: Participants will be recruited through social media and clinician referral. A total of 70 Australians, aged 18 to 25 years, who grew up with parents with a mental illness or substance use concern will participate in a 2-arm parallel randomized controlled trial. The assessment will consist of a baseline measurement and 2 follow-up periods, posttest and 6-week follow-up, using the Mental Health Continuum short form; the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale; the Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced inventory; the General Help Seeking Questionnaire; the Social Connectedness Scale; the Mental Health Literacy Scale; the General Self-Efficacy Scale; and the Attribution of Responsibility for Parental Mental Illness Measure. Impact will be examined at pre, post, and follow-up time periods using analyses of variance that will include a within-subjects factor (time) and a between-subjects factor (intervention/control). Facilitator interviews will ascertain intervention feasibility. Participant interviews will ascertain intervention acceptability. Interview data will be analyzed within a qualitative framework. Usage (data analytics) across site features and several indicators of clinical safety will also be reported. RESULTS: The impact of mi.spot will be examined at pre, post, and follow-up time periods using analyses of variance on each of the measures outlined above. There will be a within-subjects factor (time) and a between-subjects factor (intervention/control). Data analysis will employ the intention-to-treat principle by including all participants in the analyses. Qualitative interview data will be analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis along with respondent validation. The Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (reference number: 2019-18660-30434) approved the trial on April 17, 2019. As of October 2, 2019, 30 participants were enrolled in the control group and 34 participants were enrolled in the intervention group. Result are expected to be submitted for publication in December 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Study results will provide reliable evidence on a web-based intervention that has the potential to make a difference to the lives of many vulnerable young adults. Implementation guidelines are needed to embed the intervention in different service sectors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619000335190; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12619000335190. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15626.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".