Exploring Trade-Offs for Online Mental Health Matching: Agent-Based Modeling Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Online mental health communities (OMHCs) are an effective and accessible channel to give and receive social support for individuals with mental and emotional issues. However, a key challenge on these platforms is finding suitable partners to interact with given that mechanisms to match users are currently underdeveloped or highly naive. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we collaborated with one of the world's largest OMHCs; our contribution is to show the application of agent-based modeling for the design of online community matching algorithms. We developed an agent-based simulation framework and showcased how it can uncover trade-offs in different matching algorithms between people seeking support and volunteer counselors. METHODS: We used a comprehensive data set spanning January 2020 to April 2022 to create a simulation framework based on agent-based modeling that replicates the current matching mechanisms of our research site. After validating the accuracy of this simulated replication, we used this simulation framework as a "sandbox" to test different matching algorithms based on the deferred acceptance algorithm. We compared trade-offs among these different matching algorithms based on various metrics of interest, such as chat ratings and matching success rates. RESULTS: Our study suggests that various tensions emerge through different algorithmic choices for these communities. For example, our simulation uncovered that increased waiting time for support seekers was an inherent consequence on these sites when intelligent matching was used to find more suitable matches. Our simulation also verified some intuitive effects, such as that the greatest number of support seeker-counselor matches occurred using a "first come, first served" protocol, whereas relatively fewer matches occurred using a "last come, first served" protocol. We also discuss practical findings regarding matching for vulnerable versus overall populations. Results by demographic group revealed disparities-underaged and gender minority groups had lower average chat ratings and higher blocking rates on the site when compared to their majority counterparts, indicating the potential benefits of algorithmically matching them. We found that some protocols, such as a "filter"-based approach that matched vulnerable support seekers only with a counselor of their same demographic, led to improvements for these groups but resulted in lower satisfaction (-12%) among the overall population. However, this trade-off between minority and majority groups was not observed when using "topic" as a matching criterion. Topic-based matching actually outperformed the filter-based protocol among underaged people and led to significant improvements over the status quo among all minority and majority groups-specifically, a 6% average chat rating improvement and a decrease in blocking incidents from 5.86% to 4.26%. CONCLUSIONS: Agent-based modeling can reveal significant design considerations in the OMHC context, including trade-offs in various outcome metrics and the potential benefits of algorithmic matching for marginalized communities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".