MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391431734 · doi:10.3390/jcm13030865

Mitigating Psychological Problems Associated with the 2023 Wildfires in Alberta and Nova Scotia: Six-Week Outcomes from the Text4Hope Program

2024· article· en· W4391431734 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gloria Obuobi-Donkor, Reham Shalaby, Belinda Agyapong, Raquel da Luz Dias, Vincent I. O. Agyapong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaDalhousie University
FundersUniversity Hospital FoundationRoyal Alexandra Hospital FoundationAlberta Cancer FoundationMental Health FoundationQEII FoundationUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionMental healthAnxietyLongitudinal studyPatient Health QuestionnairePopulationClinical psychologySuicidal ideationPsychiatryPoison controlSuicide preventionEnvironmental healthDepressive symptoms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In 2023, wildfires led to widespread destruction of property and displacement of residents in Alberta and Nova Scotia, Canada. Previous research suggests that wildfires increase the psychological burden of impacted communities, necessitating population-level interventions. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT)-based text message interventions, Text4HopeAB and Text4HopeNS, were launched in Alberta and Nova Scotia, respectively, during the 2023 wildfire season to support the mental health of impacted individuals. Objectives: The study examines the effectiveness of Text4HopeNS and Text4HopeAB in alleviating psychological symptoms and improving wellbeing among subscribers. Methods: The study involved longitudinal and naturalistic controlled trial designs. The longitudinal study comprised subscribers who completed program surveys at baseline and six weeks post-enrolment, while the naturalistic controlled study compared psychological symptoms in subscribers who had received daily supportive text messages for six weeks (intervention group) and new subscribers who had enrolled in the program during the same period but had not yet received any text messages (control group). The severity of low resilience, poor mental wellbeing, likely Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), likely Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), likely Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and suicidal ideation were measured on the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), the World Health Organization-5 Wellbeing Index (WHO-5), Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7) scale, PTSD Checklist–Civilian Version (PCL-C), and the ninth question on the PHQ-9, respectively. The paired and independent sample t-tests were employed in data analysis. Results: The results from the longitudinal study indicated a significant reduction in the mean scores on the PHQ-9 (−12.3%), GAD-7 (−14.8%), and the PCL-C (−5.8%), and an increase in the mean score on the WHO-5, but not on the BRS, from baseline to six weeks. In the naturalistic controlled study, the intervention group had a significantly lower mean score on the PHQ-9 (−30.1%), GAD-7 (−29.4%), PCL-C (−17.5%), and the ninth question on the PHQ-9 (−60.0%) which measures the intensity of suicidal ideation, and an increase in the mean score on the WHO-5 (+24.7%), but not on the BRS, from baseline to six weeks compared to the control group. Conclusions: The results of this study suggests that the Text4Hope program is an effective intervention for mitigating psychological symptoms in subscribers during wildfires. This CBT-based text messaging program can be adapted to provide effective support for individuals’ mental health, especially in the context of traumatic events and adverse experiences such as those induced by climate change. Policymakers and mental health professionals should consider these findings when shaping strategies for future disaster response efforts, emphasizing the value of scalable and culturally sensitive mental health interventions.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.333 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207