Evaluation of a mental-health literacy and self-care website intended for young people who have a parent with a mental illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This article presents the results of the formative evaluation of a mental health literacy and self-care website intended by and for young people of a parent with a mental illness (YP). Multiple dimensions of the user experience (e.g., satisfaction with the usability of the site; emotions and learning during navigation), as well as the readability of content were measured.Methods In 2021, an online questionnaire was completed by 24 YP aged 14–25 years. Usability testing and the Flesch-Kincaid readability index were used to evaluate the website.Results Participants rated highly the various evaluated dimensions of the user experience and stated that due to the website, they learned several things that correspond to resilience factors frequently reported in the literature (e.g., better understanding of mental disorders and available resources). The Flesch-Kincaid index indicated readability appropriate for 14-year-olds.Discussion The website appears to be a promising tool for supporting resilience in YP. Participants’ suggestions for improvement will be used to develop an optimised version of the website, whose effectiveness can be tested in a randomised control study.
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 | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".