Improving Mood Through Community Connection and Resources Using an Interactive Digital Platform: Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 continues to disrupt global health and well-being. In April-May 2020, we generated a digital, remote interactive tool to provide health and well-being resources and foster connectivity among community members through a text messaging platform. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to prospectively investigate the ability of a health system-based digital, remote, interactive tool to provide health and well-being resources to local community participants and to foster connectivity among them during the early phases of COVID-19. METHODS: We performed descriptive and nonparametric longitudinal statistical analyses to describe and compare the participants' mood ratings over time and thematic analysis of their responses to text messages to further assess mood. RESULTS: From among 393 individuals seeking care in an urban emergency department in an academic setting, engaged in a two-way text messaging platform, we recorded 287 mood ratings and 368 qualitative responses. We observed no difference in the initial mood rating by week of enrollment [Kruskal-Wallis chi-square H(5)=1.34; P=.93], and the average mood rating did not change for participants taken together [Friedman chi-square Q(3)=0.32; P=.96]. However, of participants providing mood ratings at baseline, mood improved significantly among participants who reported a low mood rating at baseline [n=25, 14.97%; Q(3)=20.68; P<.001] but remained stable among those who reported a high mood rating at baseline [n=142, 85.03%; Q(3)=2.84; P=.42]. Positive mood elaborations most frequently included words related to sentiments of thankfulness and gratitude, mostly for a sense of connection and communication; in contrast, negative mood elaborations most frequently included words related to anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the feasibility of engaging individuals in a digital community with an emergency department facilitation. Specifically, for those who opt to engage in a text messaging platform during COVID-19, it is feasible to assess and respond to mood-related queries with vetted health and well-being resources.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".