MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282969096 · doi:10.2196/37424

Experiences of Using the Digital Support Tool MeeToo: Mixed Methods Study

2022· article· en· W4282969096 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giulia Ravaccia, Sophie Laura Johnson, Nicholas Morgan, Suzet Tanya Lereya, Julian Edbrooke‐Childs

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingPeer supportPsychologyEmpowermentMental healthDescriptive statisticsDigital healthYoung adultApplied psychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyHealth carePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Digital peer support is an increasingly used form of mental health support for young people. However, there is a need for more research on the impact of digital peer support and why it has an impact. Objective The aim of this research is to examine young people’s experiences of using a digital peer support tool: MeeToo. After the time of writing, MeeToo has changed their name to Tellmi. MeeToo is an anonymous, fully moderated peer support tool for young people aged 11-25 years. There were two research questions: (1) What impacts did using MeeToo have on young people? (2) Why did using MeeToo have these impacts on young people? Methods A mixed methods study was conducted. It involved secondary analysis of routinely collected feedback questionnaires, which were completed at two time points (T1 and T2) 2-3 months apart. Questionnaires asked about young people’s (N=876) experience of using MeeToo, mental health empowerment, and well-being. Primary data were collected from semistructured interviews with 10 young people. Results Overall, 398 (45.4%) of 876 young people completed the T1 questionnaire, 559 (63.8%) completed the T2 questionnaire, and 81 (9.2%) completed both. Descriptive statistics from the cross-sectional analysis of the questionnaires identified a range of positive impacts of using MeeToo, which included making it easier to talk about difficult things, being part of a supportive community, providing new ways to help oneself, feeling better, and feeling less alone. Subgroup analysis (paired-sample t test) of 58 young females who had completed both T1 and T2 questionnaires showed a small but statistically significant increase in levels of patient activation, one of the subscales of the mental health empowerment scale: time 1 mean=1.83 (95% CI 1.72-1.95), time 2 mean=2.00 (95% CI 1.89-2.11), t59=2.15, and P=.04. Anonymity and the MeeToo sense of community were identified from interviews as possible reasons for why using MeeToo had these impacts. Anonymity helped to create a safe space in which users could express their feelings, thoughts, and experiences freely without the fear of being judged by others. The MeeToo sense of community was described as a valuable form of social connectedness, which in turn had a positive impact on young people’s mental health and made them feel less isolated and alone. Conclusions The findings of this research showed a range of positive impacts and possible processes for young people using MeeToo. Future research is needed to examine how these impacts and processes can be sustained.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207