MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3187295510 · doi:10.2196/21348

Investigation of the Effects of an Online Support Group for Mental Health Problems on Stigma and Help-Seeking Among Japanese Adults: Cross-sectional Study

2021· article· en· W3187295510 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Osamu Kobori, Naoki Yoshinaga

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelp-seekingMental healthStigma (botany)Clinical psychologyPsychologyDistressComputer-assisted web interviewingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Online support groups vary widely in both goals and structures owing to the rapid development of social networking services. Several studies have shown the potential effectiveness of online support groups, such as reducing psychological distress (eg, depression) among individuals with mental health problems. However, online support groups often do not aim at effectiveness regarding distress relief-related outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine whether the use frequency of online support group platform functions (U2plus) is associated with lower stigma and higher consumer activation. METHODS: A total of 350 U2plus users participated in a web-based survey. They were asked what therapy they had received in the past and how often they logged on to it, used each of its functions, and completed the following questionnaires: the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the Devaluation-Discrimination Scale, and the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire. RESULTS: Regarding the therapy received, 88% (308/350) of participants had taken medication for mental health problems, and 66.6% (233/350) had received psychotherapy or mental health counseling. Regarding use frequency, 21.7% (74/341) of the participants signed in to U2plus and used its functions more than once a week. The use frequency of U2plus functions was not correlated with perceived stigma, but the use frequency of some functions was weakly correlated with help-seeking intentions from formal sources (eg, doctors and psychologists). However, multiple regression analyses revealed that the use frequency of those functions did not uniquely predict help-seeking intentions. CONCLUSIONS: It was suggested that online support groups may serve as an alternative treatment option for those who are already undergoing pharmacological treatment and are willing to seek help from whatever source they deem helpful.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.480
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→