MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412644096 · doi:10.1177/20552076251361236

Impact of a supportive text messaging program (Text4Support) for mitigating psychological problems in patients receiving formal mental health services: A randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4412644096 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gloria Obuobi-Donkor, Reham Shalaby, Belinda Agyapong, Samuel Obeng Nkrumah, Medard Kofi Adu, Ejemai Eboreime, Lori Wozney, Vincent I. O. Agyapong

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersQEII Foundation
KeywordsMental healthRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionSuicidal ideationMedicinePsychiatryPsychologyPoison controlSuicide preventionMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Text-based interventions are an innovative way to bridge gaps in mental health care. Programs like Text4Support provide accessible, cost-effective mental health support using daily messages based on cognitive behavioral principles, reaching a broad population. Objective: The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Text4Support in improving mental health outcomes compared to usual care in patients receiving formal mental health services. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on participants attending community mental health programs and those recently discharged from psychiatric inpatient and emergency care in Nova Scotia, Canada. Participants were assigned to either the Text4Support or control group. Mental health conditions were measured using validated scales. Patients in the Text4Support group received daily supportive text messages, whilst the control group received a single text message with a link to the Nova Scotia Health e-mental health resources. Results: Seven hundred eighty-one eligible patients were randomized, and 307 were included in the analysis. After adjusting for baseline scores, the third and ninth questions of the PHQ-9 showed a significant difference between the Text4Support group and the control group. When results were assessed based on self-reports from control group participants as to whether they accessed or did not access the NS Health e-mental health resource link, significant differences between the three groups were noted, with improvements for suicidal and/or self-harm ideation and disturbed sleep in the Text4Support group and deterioration observed in the two control groups. Conclusion: Text4Support addresses critical psychological symptoms like sleep disturbances and suicidal and/or self-harm ideation during vulnerable periods in patients' mental health journeys. Text4Support is a promising adjunct to conventional mental health care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05411302). Registered on 6 June 2022.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.407 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207