MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401385305 · doi:10.2196/48910

Young people’s perspectives on engaging with an online mental health program: a focus group study (Preprint)

2023· article· en· W4401385305 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher Cahill, Jennifer Connolly, Shelley Appleton, Melanie J. White

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsPsychological interventionFocus groupPsychologyAutonomyMental healthAnxietyDrop outIntervention (counseling)Self-determination theoryPsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Despite accessibility and clinical benefits, open access trials of self-guided digital health interventions (DHIs) for young people have been plagued by high drop-out rates, with some DHIs recording completion rates of less than 3%. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore how young people motivate themselves to complete an unpleasant task and to explore perceived motivators and demotivators for engaging with a DHI. Methods: In this qualitative research study, 30 children and adolescents aged between 7 and 17 years were recruited to participate in 7 focus groups conducted over a 3-month period. Focus group activities and discussions explored sources of motivation to complete tasks and engage in a hypothetical 6-week DHI for anxiety. Results: Children (aged 7-11 years) reported greater reliance on external motivators such as following parent instruction to complete unpleasant tasks, while adolescents (aged 12-17 years) reported greater internal motivation such as self-discipline. Program factors, such as engaging content, were the most commonly mentioned motivators for engaging with a DHI across both age groups. After that, internal sources of motivation were most commonly mentioned, such as perceived future benefits. External factors were the most commonly mentioned demotivators across all ages, with time commitment being the most frequently mentioned. Conclusions: The study's findings have implications for enhancing adherence in future DHIs targeted to children and adolescents. Recommendations include the need for supportive parental involvement for children, while adolescents would likely benefit from mechanisms that promote autonomy, establish a supportive environment, and align with personal interests and values. Belief that a DHI will provide short-term benefits is important to both children and adolescents, as well as having confidence that future benefits will be realized.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207