MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385248178 · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2023.1183319

“The library is so much more than books”: considerations for the design and implementation of teen digital mental health services in public libraries

2023· article· en· W4385248178 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ashley A. Knapp, Emily Hersch, Clarisa Wijaya, Miguel Herrera, Kaylee Payne Kruzan, Allison J. Carroll, Sydney Lee, Alex Baker, A.L. Gray, Vann Harris, Robert E. Simmons, Deepika Kour Sodhi, Nanette Deneen Hannah, Madhu Reddy, Niranjan S. Karnik, Justin D. Smith, C. Hendricks Brown, David C. Mohr

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Digital Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlEurostarsJacobs FoundationNorthwestern University
KeywordsMental healthGeneral partnershipPopulationPublic relationsPublic healthPsychologyMedicineMedical educationBusinessNursingPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Adolescence is a vulnerable developmental period, characterized by high rates of mental health concerns, yet few adolescents receive treatment. Public libraries support adolescents by providing them with access to teen programming, technological resources, and have recently been providing mental health services. Digital mental health (DMH) services may help libraries provide scalable mental health solutions for their adolescent patrons and could be well positioned to address the mental health needs of historically underrepresented racial and ethnic (HURE) adolescents; however, little research has been conducted on the compatibility of DMH services with adolescent patron mental health needs or resource needs of library workers supporting them. Methods: The research team formed a partnership with a public library, which serves a large HURE adolescent population. We conducted needs assessment and implementation readiness interviews with 17 library workers, including leadership, librarians, and workers with specialized areas of practice. Interview questions focused on library infrastructure, as well as library needs and preferences around the design and implementation of DMH services for adolescents. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as guiding implementation determinant framework to code and analyze the interview transcripts. Results: Our findings revealed library workers play an important role in guiding patrons to desired resources and share a goal of implementing adolescent DMH resources into the library and elevating marginalized adolescents' voices. Existing library resources, such as the library's role as a safe space for adolescents in the community, close relationships with external and community organizations, and availability of no-cost technological resources, could help facilitate the implementation of DMH services. Barriers related to community buy-in, mental health stigma, and library worker confidence in supporting adolescent mental health could affect service implementation. Conclusions: Our findings suggest public libraries are highly promising settings to deploy DMH services for adolescents. We identified important determinants that may impact the implementation of DMH services in public library settings. Special considerations are needed to design services to meet the mental health needs of HURE adolescent populations and those adolescents' most experiencing health inequities.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.012
Scholarly communication0.0250.017
Open science0.0060.015
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Digital HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207