MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383824153 · doi:10.2196/47250

Phone-Based Text Therapy for Youth Mental Health: Rapid Review

2023· review· en· W4383824153 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Varun Karnik, Hamish Henderson, Urooj Raza Khan, James Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsMental healthPsycINFOPsychological interventionMental health literacyPopulationMedicineMental illnessPhoneIntervention (counseling)Health carePsychologyMEDLINEPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mental illness has become a prevalent issue impacting adolescents worldwide. Many barriers, including stigma and poor health literacy, prevent this population group from accessing reliable mental health care services. Synchronous text-therapy counseling is an underused therapeutic approach in combating adolescent mental illness. Phone-based text therapy is uniquely placed to offer personalized counseling to adolescents through a familiar and engaging treatment modality. OBJECTIVE: This rapid review aims to understand the clinical effectiveness, usability, and accessibility of phone-based text therapy for youth mental health. METHODS: Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, and PsycINFO were used to search for suitable literature. Five groups of keywords were used: those related to (1) "therapy," (2) "text," (3) "phone," (4) "youth," and (5) "mental health." Eligibility criteria were formed through the PICO (Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome) framework. Studies were included if a synchronous phone-based text therapy intervention was used in an adolescent population, with an age range of 12-24 years. Only literature available in full-text, English, and a peer-reviewed journal was considered. Furthermore, a date limit of 5 years was set to reflect the recent development of digital interventions for mental health. Pertinent information from each study was tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was used to assess, describe, and organize the included studies comprehensively and concisely. RESULTS: Of the 771 studies dual screened, 7 studies were included in this rapid review. Most of the exclusions occurred due to the use of the wrong intervention, such as asynchronous messaging. The selected studies had a low risk of bias and were suitable for the review. All interventional trials demonstrated reductions in mental health symptoms, primarily depression and anxiety. Most studies displayed high usability among participants, while data were unclear regarding accessibility. CONCLUSIONS: This review reveals the high potential of phone-based text therapy as an intervention for adolescents experiencing mental illness. We hope that this review promotes further refinement of text-based phone therapies and encourages future research on this subject matter.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.545
GPT teacher head0.665
Teacher spread0.120 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207