MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399485057 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0002661

Advancing equitable access to digital mental health in the Asia-Pacific region in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A modified Delphi consensus study

2024· article· en· W4399485057 on OpenAlexafffund
Jill Murphy, Shirley Saker, Promit Ananyo Chakraborty, Y. M. Chan, Erin E. Michalak, Matias Irrarazaval, Mellissa Withers, Chee H. Ng, Amna Khan, Andrew J. Greenshaw, John O’Neil, Vu Cong Nguyen, Harry Minas, Arun Ravindran, Angela Paric, J. Chen, Xing Wang, Tae-Yeon Hwang, Nurashikin Ibrahim, Simon Hatcher, Vanessa Evans, Raymond W. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMental healthEquity (law)Health equityDelphi methodPandemicContext (archaeology)BusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceHealth careEconomic growthMedicineGeographyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychiatryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic had an unprecedented impact on global mental health and well-being, including across the Asia-Pacific. Efforts to mitigate virus spread led to far-reaching disruption in the delivery of health and social services. In response, there was a rapid shift to the use of digital mental health (DMH) approaches. Though these technologies helped to improve access to care for many, there was also substantial risk of access barriers leading to increased inequities in access to mental health care, particularly among at-risk and equity-deserving populations. The objective of this study was to conduct a needs assessment and identify priorities related to equitable DMH access among at-risk and equity-deserving populations in the Asia Pacific region during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study consisted of a modified Delphi consensus methodology including two rounds of online surveys and online consultations with stakeholders from across the region. Study participants included policy makers, clinicians and service providers, and people with lived experience of mental health conditions. Results demonstrate that vulnerabilities to negative mental health impacts and access barriers were compounded during the pandemic. Access barriers included a lack of linguistically and culturally appropriate DMH options, low mental health literacy and poor access to technological infrastructure and devices, low levels of awareness and trust of DMH options, and lack of policies and guidelines to support effective and equitable delivery of DMH. Recommendations to improve equitable access include ensuring that diverse people with lived experience are engaged in research, co-design and policy development, the development and implementation of evidence-based and equity-informed guidelines and frameworks, clear communication about DMH evidence and availability, and the integration of DMH into broader health systems. Study results can inform the development and implementation of equitable DMH as its use becomes more widespread across health systems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Global Public HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207