Exploring the Views of Young People, Including Those With a History of Self-Harm, on the Use of Their Routinely Generated Data for Mental Health Research: Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Secondary use of routinely collected health care data has great potential benefits in epidemiological studies primarily due to the large scale of preexisting data. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to engage respondents with and without a history of self-harm, gain insight into their views on the use of their data for research, and determine whether there were any differences in opinions between the 2 groups. METHODS: We examined young people's views on the use of their routinely collected data for mental health research through a web-based survey, evaluating any differences between those with and without a history of self-harm. RESULTS: A total of 1765 respondents aged 16 to 24 years were included. Respondents' views were mostly positive toward the use and linkage of their data for research purposes for public benefit, particularly with regard to the use of health care data (mental health or otherwise), and generally echoed existing evidence on the opinions of older age groups. Individuals who reported a history of self-harm and subsequently contacted health services more often reported being "extremely likely" or "likely" to share mental health data (contacted: 209/609, 34.3%; 95% CI 28.0-41.2; not contacted: 169/782, 21.6%; 95% CI 15.8-28.7) and physical health data (contacted: 117/609, 19.2%; 95% CI 12.7-27.8; not contacted: 96/782, 12.3%; 95% CI 6.7-20.9) compared with those who had not contacted services. Respondents were overall less likely to want to share their social media data, which they considered to be more personal compared to their health care data. Respondents stressed the importance of anonymity and the need for an appropriate ethical framework. CONCLUSIONS: Young people are aware, and they care about how their data are being used and for what purposes, irrespective of having a history of self-harm. They are largely positive about the use of health care data (mental or physical) for research and generally echo the opinions of older age groups raising issues around data security and the use of data for the public interest.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".