Evaluation of the novel HEalthy Lifestyle Project (HELP) youth mental health e-intervention for lifestyle behaviour change and mental healthcare system impact: A randomized controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth mental health is in crisis: suicide and self-harm doubled from 2019-2022; youth wait 8-12 months for care; 75% of youth with mental illness do not get care. Sleep, physical activity, and screen time impact mental wellbeing; lifestyle factors addressed with 95% of youth receiving mental health care. The virtual, asynchronous HELP (HEalthy Lifestyle Project) resource could enable step-by-step lifestyle behaviour change with or without professional support. HELP was collaboratively developed with youth experiencing mental distress, parents, and clinicians. METHODS: Youth 12-17 seeking mental health services will be randomized to receive six months of immediate HELP e-resource access or a waitlist control (ClinicalTrials.gov, #NCT06232733). The primary outcome is emotional health (Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire total score). Secondary outcomes include behaviour change readiness, sleep, physical activity, screen time, and quality of life. All outcomes will be assessed at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months. Healthcare system utilization, extracted from health records at 18 months, will be compared relative to intervention access and compliance between participants and matched controls. DISCUSSION: The HELP e-resource offers an accessible, stigma-free option for lifestyle support that could be widely available to youth experiencing mental distress. Healthy lifestyle behaviour change is a low-risk intervention that youth can access independently, or with support, whenever they are ready to engage, without waiting for specialist services. Healthy lifestyle behaviour change can enhance mental well-being and readiness to engage in treatment. Such changes could reduce the need for specialist support, alleviating an overburdened youth mental healthcare system.
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 | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.008 |
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.
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".