MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220987173 · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2022.100526

What twitter can tell us about user experiences of crisis text lines: A qualitative study

2022· article· en· W4220987173 on OpenAlexafffund
Alanna Coady, Keeley Lainchbury, Rebecca Godard, Susan Holtzman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternet Interventions · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHotlineMental healthThematic analysisSocial mediaEmpathyInternet privacyHarmService (business)MedicinePsychologyPublic relationsQualitative researchWorld Wide WebPsychiatryBusinessSocial psychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceSociologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental health problems are the leading cause of disability worldwide. Despite the prevalence and cost of mental illness, there are insufficient health services to meet this demand. Crisis hotlines have a number of advantages for addressing mental health challenges and reducing barriers to support. Mental health crisis services have recently expanded beyond telephone hotlines to include other communication modalities such as chat and text messaging services, largely in response to the increased use of mobile phones and text messaging for social communication. Despite the high uptake of crisis text line services (CTLs) and rising mental health problems worldwide, CTLs remain understudied. The current study aimed to address an urgent need to evaluate user experiences with text-based crisis services. This study explored user experiences of CTLs by accessing users' publicly available Twitter posts that describe personal use and experience with CTLs. Data were qualitatively analyzed using thematic analysis. Six main themes were identified from 776 tweets: (1) approval of CTLs, (2) helpful counselling, (3) invalidating or unhelpful counselling, (4) problems with how the service is delivered, (5) features of the service that facilitate accessibility, and (6) indication that the service suits multiple needs. Overall, results provide evidence for the value of text-based crisis support, as many users reported positive experiences of effective counselling that provided helpful coping skills, de-escalation, and reduction of harm. Results also identified areas for improvement, particularly ensuring more timely service delivery and effective communication of empathy. Text-based services may require targeted training to apply methods that effectively convey empathy in this medium. Moving forward, CTL services will require systematic attention in the clinical research literature to ensure their continued success and popularity among users.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.372 · 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternet InterventionsSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207