Parent Preferences for Peer Connection in Virtual Mental Health and Parenting Support Platforms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Peer connections can be integrated in online and app-based (eHealth) family mental health and parenting programs through forums/chats or video group sessions. Little is known about parental preferences regarding eHealth features, yet they could be key factors influencing uptake and utility of programs. Accordingly, the present study aims to examine parent preferences for connecting with other parents in eHealth programs. Parents ( n = 177) of 0–5-year-old children in the United States were recruited on MTurk. Parents were asked about peer connection preferences through questions framed around how and with whom they would like to connect when using a virtual mental health and parenting support platform. Most (86.4%) preferred connecting with other parents in an eHealth program with 73.2% preferring to connect anonymously. If using a forum, 45.5% of mothers were comfortable connecting only with other mothers whereas 54.5% were comfortable connecting with parents of any gender; 80.3% of fathers were comfortable connecting with all parents. Results were similar for videoconferencing. Age, income, number of children, recent stressful events, social support, mental health symptoms, and parenting stress did not predict any of these preferences. Our results suggest that integrating peer connection should be considered in developing parental eHealth programs as it may be in line with the preferences of most parents and programs that match user preferences have been shown to have higher enrollment and adherence. These preferences should be further studied with community samples and diverse participants to strengthen confidence in the findings and properly inform program development.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it