MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399535582 · doi:10.2196/51570

Development and Implementation of Postdischarge Text Messages to Adolescents With Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors Through Caring Contacts: Implementation Study

2024· article· en· W4399535582 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Glenn Thomas, Elena Camacho, Fatimah A Masood, Yungui Huang, Jahnavi Valleru, Jeffrey A. Bridge, J.P. Ackerman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSubstance Abuse and Mental Health Services AdministrationCenter for Mental Health ServicesU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsPreprintPsychologyApplied psychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Youth suicide is a pressing public health concern, and transitions in care after a suicidal crisis represent a period of elevated risk. Disruptions in continuity of care and emotional support occur frequently. "Caring contacts" validating messages post discharge have the potential to enhance connections with patients and have been shown to improve outcomes. More recently, positive outcomes have been noted using caring contact text messages (SMS and MMS), which hold promise for engaging patients in a pediatric setting, but there are few studies describing the large-scale implementation of such an approach. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the process of developing and implementing automated caring contacts within a quality improvement framework, using a standardized series of supportive texts and images, for adolescents discharged from high-acuity programs at a large midwestern pediatric hospital. We describe lessons learned, including challenges and factors contributing to success. METHODS: We implemented the caring contacts intervention in 3 phases. Phase 1 entailed developing supportive statements and images designed to promote hope, inclusivity, and connection in order to create 2 sets of 8 text messages and corresponding images. Phase 2 included piloting caring contacts manually in the hospital's Psychiatric Crisis Department and Inpatient Psychiatry Unit and assessing the feasibility of implementation in other services, as well as developing workflows and addressing legal considerations. Phase 3 consisted of implementing an automated process to scale within 4 participating hospital services and integrating enrollment into the hospital's electronic medical records. Process outcome measures included staff compliance with approaching and enrolling eligible patients and results from an optional posttext survey completed by participants. RESULTS: Compliance data are presented for 4062 adolescent patients eligible for caring contacts. Overall, 88.65% (3601/4062) of eligible patients were approached, of whom 52.43% (1888/3601) were enrolled. In total, 94.92% (1792/1888) of enrolled participants completed the program. Comparisons of the patients eligible, approached, enrolled, and completed are presented. Primary reasons for eligible patients declining include not having access to a mobile phone (686/1705, 40.23%) and caregivers preferring to discuss the intervention at a later time (754/1705, 44.22%). The majority of patients responding to the optional posttext survey reported that the texts made them feel moderately to very hopeful (219/264, 83%), supported (232/264, 87.9%), that peers would be helped by these texts (243/264, 92%), and that they would like to keep receiving texts given the option (227/264, 86%). CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the successful implementation of automated postdischarge caring contacts texts to scale with an innovative use of images and demonstrates how a quality improvement methodology resulted in a more effective and efficient process. This paper also highlights the potential for technology to enhance care for at-risk youth and create more accessible, inclusive, and sustainable prevention strategies.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207