MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409673920 · doi:10.2196/65163

Developing Digital Mental Health Tools With Culturally Diverse Parents and Young People: Qualitative User-Centered Design Study

2025· article· en· W4409673920 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isobel Butorac, Róisín McNaney, Joshua Paolo Seguin, Patrick Olivier, Jaimie C. Northam, Lucy A. Tully, Talia Carl, Adrian Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthThematic analysisGeneral partnershipIntervention (counseling)Qualitative researchPopulationCulturally appropriatePsychologyMedicineNursingGerontologySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Approximately 39% of young people (aged 16-24 y) experience mental ill health, but only 23% seek professional help. Early intervention is essential for reducing the impacts of mental illness, but young people, particularly those from culturally diverse communities, report experiencing shame and stigma, which can deter them from engaging with face-to-face services. Digital mental health (DMH) tools promise to increase access, but there is a lack of literature exploring the suitability of DMH tools for culturally diverse populations. OBJECTIVE: The project was conducted in partnership with a large-scale national DMH organization that promotes evidence-based early intervention, treatment, and support of mental health in young people and their families. The organization wanted to develop a self-directed web-based platform for parents and young people that integrates psychological assessments and intervention pathways via a web-based "check-in" tool. Our project explored the views of culturally diverse parents and young people on the opportunities and barriers to engagement with a web-based DMH screening tool. METHODS: We conducted a 2-phase qualitative study aiming to identify potential issues faced by culturally diverse communities when engaging with DMH tools designed for the Australian public. We worked with 18 culturally diverse participants (parents: n=8, 44%; young people: n=10, 56%) in a series of design-led workshops drawing on methods from speculative design and user experience to understand the opportunities and barriers that organizations might face when implementing population-level DMH tools with culturally diverse communities. NVivo was used to conduct thematic analyses of the audio-recorded and transcribed workshop data. RESULTS: Five themes were constructed from the workshops: (1) trust in the use and application of a DMH tool, (2) data management and sharing, (3) sociocultural influences on mental health, (4) generational differences in mental health and digital literacy, and (5) stigma and culturally based discrimination in mental health support. CONCLUSIONS: The emergent themes have important considerations for researchers wishing to develop more inclusive DMH tools. The study found that healthy parent-child relationships will increase engagement in mental health support for young persons from culturally diverse backgrounds. Barriers to engagement with DMH tools included culturally based discrimination, the influence of culture on mental health support, and the potential impact of a diagnostic label on help seeking. The study's findings suggest a need for culturally safe psychoeducation for culturally diverse end users that fosters self-determination with tailored resources. They also highlight important key challenges when working with culturally diverse populations.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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