Repeated Psychosocial Screening of High School Students Using YouthCHAT: Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychosocial problems are common during adolescence and can have long-lasting effects on health and on academic and social functioning. YouthCHAT, an electronic HEEADSSS (home, education, eating, activities, drugs and alcohol, suicide and depression, sexuality and safety)-aligned instrument, has recently been demonstrated to be an acceptable and effective school-based psychosocial screener for 13-year-old (Year 9) high school students. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare acceptability and detection rates with repeated YouthCHAT screenings of high school students when they are 13 years old (Year 9) and 14 years old (Year 10). METHODS: We invited all Year-10 students to complete a YouthCHAT screening in 2018. Rates of positively identified issues were compared between the subset of students screened in both 2017 and 2018. Student acceptability toward YouthCHAT was investigated through focus group sessions. Onward clinical referral rates in 2018 were also investigated to explore the potential referral burden following screening. Data analysis for rates of positively identified issues were conducted with the McNemar test. Chi-square, Fisher exact test, and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to analyze the focus group data. RESULTS: Of 141 eligible Year-10 students, 114 (81%) completed a YouthCHAT screening during 2018, and 97 (85%) of them completed it for a second time. Apart from depression, which increased (P=.002), and perceived life stress, which decreased (P=.04), rates of identified issues were broadly similar between 13 and 14 years of age. Repeated screenings via YouthCHAT was acceptable to students and time-efficient (mean, 6 minutes and 32 seconds) but did not reduce the overall number of individuals with identified issues. Onward clinical referrals from positive screens were mostly managed by school-based health services without the need for external referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Although further evaluation is needed, our results support the value of YouthCHAT as an acceptable and effective instrument with which to achieve routine identification of psychosocial issues and early intervention within a high school environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".