MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401369030 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/wqty9

A Scoping Review Protocol: Decision-Aid Tools for Disclosure and Help-Seeking of Mental Health Concerns

2024· review· en· W4401369030 on OpenAlexaff
Kassandra Hon, Mark Boyes, Stephen P. Lewis, Penelope Hasking

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOMental healthScopusContext (archaeology)PsychologyGrey literatureMEDLINEApplied psychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This scoping review aims to capture and synthesise the growing literature on decision-aid tools designed to support people in the decision to disclose or seek help for their mental health concerns. Introduction: Globally, there is a large discrepancy between the prevalence of mental health concerns and the proportion of people who disclose or seek help for their mental health. As such, decision-aid tools have recently emerged in the mental health context to facilitate the disclosure and help-seeking process. Given recent developments in this field, a synthesis of the literature is needed to consolidate the existing decision-aid tools and assess their effectiveness, particularly in facilitating the disclosure or help-seeking process. This may help identify research gaps and guide future developments in decision-aid tools. Inclusion criteria: The review will consider empirical studies and theses/dissertations that match the following criteria: 1) focus on populations with a mental health concern, 2) report the development and/or evaluation of a decision aid tool, and 3) the decision aid tool was specifically designed to facilitate the disclosure or help-seeking process, or report on at least one disclosure or help-seeking related outcome. Methods: The review will be guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute’s guidelines for scoping reviews. The search will be conducted in Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest Central, and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. Results and Conclusion: This scoping review will provide a narrative synthesis of the types and effectiveness of decision-aid tools relevant to the research objectives. The review will also outline the gaps in the existing literature and offer recommendations for future research on decision-aid tools to support people in deciding to disclose or seek help for their mental health concerns.

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)0.155
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.155
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1550.155
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.011
Bibliometrics0.0210.021
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0120.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1440.035

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.585
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMental Health Treatment and Access→French-language works237,207→