Building Mutually Beneficial Collaborations Between Digital Navigators, Mental Health Professionals, and Clients: Naturalistic Observational Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: Despite the efficacy of digital mental health technologies (DMHTs) in clinical trials, low uptake and poor engagement are common in real-world settings. Accordingly, digital technology experts or "digital navigators" are increasingly being used to enhance engagement and shared decision-making between health professionals and clients. However, this area is relatively underexplored and there is a lack of data from naturalistic settings. In this paper, we report observational findings from the implementation of a digital navigator in a multidisciplinary mental health clinic in Sydney, Australia. The digital navigator supported clients and health professionals to use a measurement-based DMHT (the Innowell platform) for improved multidimensional outcome assessment and to guide personalized decision-making. Observational data are reported from implementation logs, platform usage statistics, and response rates to digital navigator emails and phone calls. Ultimately, support from the digital navigator led to improved data collection and clearer communications about goals for using the DMHT to track client outcomes; however, this required strong partnerships between health professionals, the digital navigator, and clients. The digital navigator helped to facilitate the integration of DMHT into care, rather than providing a stand-alone service. Thus, collaborations between health professionals and digital navigators are mutually beneficial and empower clients to be more engaged in their own care.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".