MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171101696 · doi:10.2196/24896

A Caregiver Digital Intervention to Support Shared Decision Making in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: Development Process and Stakeholder Involvement Analysis

2021· article· en· W3171101696 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shaun Liverpool, Julian Edbrooke‐Childs

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsPsychological interventionMental healthIntervention (counseling)StakeholderTransparency (behavior)Process (computing)PsychologyNursingMedicineMedical educationPublic relationsComputer sciencePsychiatryComputer securityPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Parents and caregivers are generally recognized by literature and the law as key to child and adolescent mental health decisions. Digital interventions are increasingly being used to support care and treatment in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). However, evidence of the design and development process is generally not made available. OBJECTIVE: In light of calls for more transparency, this paper aims to describe the development of an evidence-based, theoretically informed digital decision support intervention for parents and caregivers of young people accessing CAMHS. METHODS: The intervention was developed in line with the UK Medical Research Council framework for developing complex interventions. The process incorporated the steps for developing patient decision aids, as follows: assessing need, assessing feasibility; defining objectives; identifying the framework of decision support; and selecting the methods, designs, and dissemination approach. We synthesized theory, research, international guidelines, and input from relevant stakeholders using an iterative design approach. RESULTS: The development steps resulted in Power Up for Parents, a decision support intervention, with five key features (ie, decisions, goals, journey, support, and resources). The intervention aims to encourage discussion, allow parents to ask questions during sessions or seek further information between sessions, and allow service providers to tailor the shared decision-making process to accommodate the needs of the parent and child. CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed that it is possible to use input from end users-integrated with theory and evidence-to create digital interventions to be used in CAMHS. Key lessons with implications for practice, policy, and implementation science, along with preliminary findings, are presented. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/14571.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207