Satisfaction, Perceived Usefulness, and Therapeutic Alliance as Correlates of Participant Engagement in a Pediatric Digital Mental Health Intervention: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although evidence suggests that digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) are effective alternatives to traditional mental health care, participant engagement continues to be an issue, especially for pediatric DMHIs. Extant studies of DMHIs among adults suggest that participants' satisfaction, perceived usefulness, and therapeutic alliance are closely tied to engagement. However, these associations have not been investigated among children and adolescents involved in DMHIs. OBJECTIVE: To address these gaps in extant DMHI research, the purpose of this study was to (1) develop and implement a measure to assess satisfaction, perceived usefulness, and therapeutic alliance among children and adolescents participating in a DMHI and (2) investigate satisfaction, perceived usefulness, and therapeutic alliance as correlates of children's and adolescents' engagement in the DMHI. METHODS: Members (children and adolescents) of a pediatric DMHI who had completed at least one session with a care provider (eg, coach or therapist) were eligible for inclusion in the study. Adolescent members and caregivers of children completed a survey assessing satisfaction with service, perceived usefulness of care, and therapeutic alliance with care team members. RESULTS: This study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of an adolescent- and caregiver-reported user experience assessment in a pediatric DMHI. Moreover, our findings suggest that adolescents' and caregivers' satisfaction and perceived usefulness are salient correlates of youths' engagement with a DMHI. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable preliminary evidence that caregivers' satisfaction and perceived usefulness are salient correlates of youths' engagement with a DMHI. Although further research is required, these findings offer preliminary evidence that caregivers play a critical role in effectively increasing engagement among children and adolescents involved in DMHIs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".