MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107907126 · doi:10.2196/23813

Impact of a Web-Based Psychiatric Assessment on the Mental Health and Well-Being of Individuals Presenting With Depressive Symptoms: Longitudinal Observational Study

2020· article· en· W3107907126 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dan-Mircea Mirea, Nayra A Martin-Key, Giles Barton‐Owen, Tony Olmert, Jason D. Cooper, Sung Yeon Sarah Han, Lynn P. Farrag, Emily Bell, Lauren V. Friend, Paweł Eljasz, Dan Cowell, Jakub Tomasik, Sabine Bahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStanley Medical Research Institute
KeywordsMental healthPsychoeducationMoodPsychiatryObservational studyDepression (economics)Medical diagnosisMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Web-based assessments of mental health concerns hold great potential for earlier, more cost-effective, and more accurate diagnoses of psychiatric conditions than that achieved with traditional interview-based methods. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a comprehensive web-based mental health assessment on the mental health and well-being of over 2000 individuals presenting with symptoms of depression. METHODS: Individuals presenting with depressive symptoms completed a web-based assessment that screened for mood and other psychiatric conditions. After completing the assessment, the study participants received a report containing their assessment results along with personalized psychoeducation. After 6 and 12 months, participants were asked to rate the usefulness of the web-based assessment on different mental health-related outcomes and to self-report on their recent help-seeking behavior, diagnoses, medication, and lifestyle changes. In addition, general mental well-being was assessed at baseline and both follow-ups using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS). RESULTS: Data from all participants who completed either the 6-month or the 12-month follow-up (N=2064) were analyzed. The majority of study participants rated the study as useful for their subjective mental well-being. This included talking more openly (1314/1939, 67.77%) and understanding one's mental health problems better (1083/1939, 55.85%). Although most participants (1477/1939, 76.17%) found their assessment results useful, only a small proportion (302/2064, 14.63%) subsequently discussed them with a mental health professional, leading to only a small number of study participants receiving a new diagnosis (110/2064, 5.33%). Among those who were reviewed, new mood disorder diagnoses were predicted by the digital algorithm with high sensitivity (above 70%), and nearly half of the participants with new diagnoses also had a corresponding change in medication. Furthermore, participants' subjective well-being significantly improved over 12 months (baseline WEMWBS score: mean 35.24, SD 8.11; 12-month WEMWBS score: mean 41.19, SD 10.59). Significant positive predictors of follow-up subjective well-being included talking more openly, exercising more, and having been reviewed by a psychiatrist. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that completing a web-based mental health assessment and receiving personalized psychoeducation are associated with subjective mental health improvements, facilitated by increased self-awareness and subsequent use of self-help interventions. Integrating web-based mental health assessments within primary and/or secondary care services could benefit patients further and expedite earlier diagnosis and effective treatment. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/18453.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207