Promoting Resilience and Well-being Through Co-design (The PRIDE Project): Protocol for the Development and Preliminary Evaluation of a Prototype Resilience-Based Intervention for Sexual and Gender Minority Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY) are at an increased risk of a range of mental health problems. However, few evidence-informed interventions have been developed specifically to support their mental well-being. Interventions that are evidence-informed for the general population and are fine-tuned specifically with SGMY in mind proffer considerable potential. A particular opportunity lies in the delivery of engaging interventions on the web, where the focus is on enhancing the coping skills and building the resilience of SGMY, in a way that is directly relevant to their experiences. On the basis of earlier work related to an intervention called Rainbow SPARX (Smart, Positive, Active, Realistic, X-factor thoughts), we seek to create a new resource, especially for SGMY in the United Kingdom. OBJECTIVE: This project has 3 main objectives. First, together with SGMY as well as key adult experts, we aim to co-design a media-rich evidence-informed web-based SGMY well-being prototype toolkit aimed at those aged between 13 and 19 years. Second, we will explore how the web-based toolkit can be used within public health systems in the United Kingdom by SGMY and potentially other relevant stakeholders. Third, we aim to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the toolkit, which will inform the design of a future effectiveness study. METHODS: The first objective will be met by conducting the following: approximately 10 interviews with SGMY and 15 interviews with adult experts, a scoping review of studies focused on psychosocial coping strategies for SGMY, and co-design workshops with approximately 20 SGMY, which will inform the creation of the prototype toolkit. The second objective will be met by carrying out interviews with approximately 5 selected adult experts and 10 SGMY to explore how the toolkit can be best used and to determine the parameters and user-generated standards for a future effectiveness trial. The final objective will be met with a small-scale process evaluation, using the think out loud methodology, conducted with approximately 10 SGMY. RESULTS: The study commenced on September 1, 2021, and data gathering for phase 1 began in October 2021. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable body of work has described the issues faced by the SGMY. However, there is a dearth of research seeking to develop interventions for SGMY so that they can thrive. This project aims to co-design such an intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Research Registry Reference researchregistry6815; https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/609e81bda4a706001c94b63a/. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/31036.
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 | 0.051 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.013 |
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".