MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206821474 · doi:10.2196/preprints.22423

Changes in Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Levels of Subscribers to a Daily Supportive Text Message Program (Text4Hope) During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Survey Study (Preprint)

2020· preprint· en· W4206821474 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vincent I. O. Agyapong, Marianne Hrabok, Wesley Vuong, Reham Shalaby, Jasmine M. Noble, April Gusnowski, Kelly Mrklas, Daniel Li, Liana Urichuk, Mark Snaterse, Shireen Surood, Bo Cao, Xin‐Min Li, Russell Greiner, Andrew J. Greenshaw

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesHealth Sciences CentreAlberta HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Children's Hospital FoundationUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Cancer FoundationRoyal Alexandra Hospital FoundationChildren's Hospital FoundationAlberta Health Services
KeywordsAnxietyMental healthDepression (economics)Patient Health QuestionnairePerceived Stress ScaleCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologyMedicineScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyGeneralized anxiety disorderPsychiatryStress (linguistics)Depressive symptomsDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND In addition to the obvious physical medical impact of COVID-19, the disease poses evident threats to people’s mental health, psychological safety, and well-being. Provision of support for these challenges is complicated by the high number of people requiring support and the need to maintain physical distancing. Text4Hope, a daily supportive SMS text messaging program, was launched in Canada to mitigate the negative mental health impacts of the pandemic among Canadians. OBJECTIVE This paper describes the changes in the stress, anxiety, and depression levels of subscribers to the Text4Hope program after 6 weeks of exposure to daily supportive SMS text messages. METHODS We used self-administered, empirically supported web-based questionnaires to assess the demographic and clinical characteristics of Text4Hope subscribers. Perceived stress, anxiety, and depression were measured with the 10-Item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7) scale, and the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) scale at baseline and sixth week time points. Moderate or high perceived stress, likely generalized anxiety disorder, and likely major depressive disorder were assessed using cutoff scores of ≥14 for the PSS-10, ≥10 for the GAD-7, and ≥10 for the PHQ-9, respectively. At 6 weeks into the program, 766 participants had completed the questionnaires at both time points. RESULTS At the 6-week time point, there were statistically significant reductions in mean scores on the PSS-10 and GAD-7 scales but not on the PHQ-9 scale. Effect sizes were small overall. There were statistically significant reductions in the prevalence rates of moderate or high stress and likely generalized anxiety disorder but not likely major depressive disorder for the group that completed both the baseline and 6-week assessments. The largest reductions in mean scores and prevalence rates were for anxiety (18.7% and 13.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Text4Hope is a convenient, cost-effective, and accessible means of implementing a population-level psychological intervention. This service demonstrated significant reductions in anxiety and stress levels during the COVID-19 pandemic and could be used as a population-level mental health intervention during natural disasters and other emergencies. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/19292

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)0.001
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 score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→