Redefining virtual mental health services: youths’ perspectives and ideal features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a significant shift in our approach to healthcare, leading to the widespread adoption of virtual healthcare services, including mental healthcare. In this context, understanding and incorporating the unique perspectives of youths is crucial for improving virtual mental health services for this population. Objectives This qualitative study explores the ideal features of virtual mental health services among youths. Methods Nine focus group discussions and eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with 65 individuals aged 15-35 in Singapore. To ensure the comprehensive representation of youths’ perspectives, participants from diverse ethnicities (mainly Chinese, Malay, and Indian), ages, and genders were included using purposive sampling. The data was analysed using content analysis through both inductive and deductive approaches. Results Four main themes were identified from the data. First, technology and platform: youths stressed the importance of a credible and government-endorsed service provider to deliver a comprehensive and trustworthy experience facilitated by qualified professionals. Second, functionality: they wanted credible affiliations to be displayed prominently on the home page and various tools such as calls, chats, moderated forums, profiles of healthcare professionals, and educational resources. Confidentiality, anonymity, and privacy were also highlighted as necessary. Third, user interface: youths preferred an intuitive and age-tailored interface to ensure a seamless and user-friendly experience, with organised content, appealing aesthetics, and engaging elements on video call sessions. Fourth, usability: they emphasised the need for an affordable and widely compatible operating system to promote accessibility of services. Conclusions Virtual mental health services, with their great potential, can expand and effectively meet the needs of youths. By prioritizing credible platforms, comprehensive functionality, confidentiality, an intuitive interface, and broad accessibility, we can enhance help-seeking among youths and create a more effective support system. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".