MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411400236 · doi:10.2196/preprints.78791

Building the Infrastructure for Sustainable Digital Mental Health: It’s ‘Prime Time’ for Implementation Science (Preprint)

2025· preprint· en· W4411400236 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gillian Strudwick, Iman Kassam, John Torous, Sean Patenaude

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthEnthusiasmContext (archaeology)SustainabilityScale (ratio)Digital healthValue propositionEarly adopterHealth carePublic relationsKnowledge managementBusinessMedicinePolitical sciencePsychologyComputer scienceMarketingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNSTRUCTURED Despite growing enthusiasm and a proliferation of digital mental health innovations, their integration into routine clinical care remains limited, often stalled at the pilot, research, or demonstration stage. This editorial argues that successful adoption, scale-up, and sustainability of digital mental health innovations require intentional infrastructure, not just technology. Using the NASSS (Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability) implementation science framework, we examine how challenges across the seven framework domains (condition, technology, value proposition, adopters, organization, wider context, and their interactions over time) continue to hinder meaningful progress. We describe a focused digital mental innovation infrastructure as a model for overcoming these barriers. Drawing on experiences from the Digital Innovation Hub at Canada’s largest mental health and addictions teaching hospital, we illustrate how investing in the right infrastructure may move digital mental health innovations from ‘promising’ to ‘impactful’. We call for global collaboration to share knowledge and accelerate real-world integration of digital innovations in routine mental health clinical 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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0170.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.008

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.431 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods · Commentary

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→