The Use of Text Messaging to Improve Clinical Engagement for Individuals With Psychosis: Systematic Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Individuals experiencing psychosis are at a disproportionate risk for premature disengagement from clinical treatment. Barriers to clinical engagement typically result from funding constraints causing limited access to and flexibility in services. Digital strategies, such as SMS text messaging, offer a low-cost alternative to potentially improve engagement. However, little is known about the efficacy of SMS text messaging in psychosis. OBJECTIVE This review aimed to address this gap, providing insights into the relationship between SMS text messaging and clinical engagement in the treatment of psychosis. METHODS Studies examining SMS text messaging as an engagement strategy in the treatment of psychosis were reviewed. Included studies were published from the year 2000 onward in the English language, with no methodological restrictions, and were identified using 3 core databases and gray literature sources. RESULTS Of the 233 studies extracted, 15 were eligible for inclusion. Most studies demonstrated the positive effects of SMS text messaging on dimensions of engagement such as medication adherence, clinic attendance, and therapeutic alliance. Studies examining the feasibility of SMS text messaging interventions found that they are safe, easy to use, and positively received. CONCLUSIONS Overall, SMS text messaging is a low-cost, practical method of improving engagement in the treatment of psychosis, although efficacy may vary by symptomology and personal characteristics. Cost-effectiveness and safety considerations were not adequately examined in the studies included. Future studies should consider personalizing SMS text messaging interventions and include cost and safety analyses to appraise readiness for implementation. CLINICALTRIAL
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 | 0.011 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".