Self-Management Strategies in Youth With Difficulties Related to Anxiety or Depression: What Helps Them Feel Better
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anxiety and depressive disorders are the most prevalent mental health problems in adolescents, however, little is known about the strategies they use to deal with their difficulties and regain power over their symptoms. This exploratory study documented the self-management strategies used by adolescents to recover from difficulties related to anxiety and/or depression. Individual interviews were conducted in Montreal, Canada with 49 participants aged 11 to 18 years (28 girls, 20 boys, and 1 non-binary person from various cultural origins) after approval by the Institutional Review Board. Young people were questioned about the self-management strategies they put in place when they felt stressed, sad, or anxious. The data were coded according to the thematic analysis method using an inductive approach. Participants reported 73 self-management strategies, regrouped in four broad themes: (a) I think through; (b) I surround myself with people/animals; (c) I feel and manage my emotions; (d) I continue my daily activities. Their strategies emphasize the role played by their social network and the place of social media as a support in their recovery. Self-management is an empowering process that allows adolescents to take responsibility and to make decisions that foster their recovery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".