MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308635655 · doi:10.2196/42031

Engagement, Use, and Impact of Digital Mental Health Resources for Diverse Populations in COVID-19: Community-Partnered Evaluation

2022· article· en· W4308635655 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenneth B. Wells, April D. Thames, Alexander S. Young, Lily Zhang, MarySue V. Heilemann, Daniela Flores Romero, Adrian Oliva, Felica Jones, Lingqi Tang, Melissa J. Brymer, T.S.J. Elliott, Armen C. Arevian

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesUniversity of California, DavisUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsMental healthLesbianTransgenderAnxietyEthnic groupPsychologyPandemicPublic healthHealth equityMedicineGerontologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychiatryNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic increased disparities for communities burdened by structural barriers such as reduced affordable housing, with mental health consequences. Limited data are available on digital resources for public mental health prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to evaluate engagement in and impact of free digital resources on the Together for Wellness/Juntos por Nuestro Bienestar (T4W/Juntos) website during COVID-19 in California. METHODS: A pilot evaluation of T4W/Juntos was performed, with partner agencies inviting providers, clients, and partners to visit the website and complete surveys at baseline (September 20, 2021, to April 4, 2022) and at 4-6-week follow-up (October 22, 2021, to May 17, 2022). Website use was assessed by three engagement items (ease of use, satisfaction, relevance), comfort in use, and use of six resource categories. Primary outcomes at follow-up were depression and anxiety (scores≥3 on Patient Health Questionnaire-2 item [PHQ2] and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 item [GAD2] scales). Secondary outcomes were post-pre differences in PHQ2 and GAD2 scores, and use of behavioral health hotlines and services the month before follow-up. RESULTS: Of 366 eligible participants, 315 (86.1%) completed baseline and 193 (61.3%) completed follow-up surveys. Of baseline participants, 72.6% identified as female, and 21.3% identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and others (LGBTQ+). In terms of ethnicity, 44.0% identified as Hispanic, 17.8% as African American, 26.9% as non-Hispanic white, and 11.4% as other ethnicity. Overall, 32.7% had moderate anxiety or depression (GAD2/PHQ2≥3) at baseline. Predictors of baseline website engagement included being Hispanic versus other race/ethnicity (β=.27, 95% CI .10-.44; P=.002) and number of COVID-19-related behavior changes (β=.09, 95% CI .05-.13; P<.001). Predictors of comfort using the website were preferring English for website use (odds ratio [OR] 5.57, 95% CI 2.22-13.96; P<.001) and COVID-19-related behavior changes (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.12-1.66; P=.002); receiving overnight behavioral health treatment in the prior 6 months (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.69, P=.015) was associated with less comfort in website use. The main predictor of depression at follow-up (PHQ2≥3) was baseline depression (OR 6.24, 95% CI 2.77-14.09; P<.001). Engagement in T4W/Juntos was associated with lower likelihood of depression (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.86; P=.01). Website use the month before follow-up was associated with a post-pre reduction in PHQ2 score (β=-.62, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.20; P=.004). The main predictor of GAD2≥3 at follow-up was baseline GAD2≥3 (OR 13.65, 95% CI 6.06-30.72; P<.001). Greater baseline website engagement predicted reduced hotline use (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.71; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity/language and COVID-19-related behavior changes were associated with website engagement; engagement and use predicted reduced follow-up depression and behavioral hotline use. Findings are based on participants recommended by community agencies with moderate follow-up rates; however, significance was similar when weighting for nonresponse. This study may inform research and policy on digital mental health prevention resources.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.556
GPT teacher head0.632
Teacher spread0.076 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207