MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416181540 · doi:10.2196/69749

Implementing Digital Tools for Mental Health Support in Young Individuals in Colombia: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study

2025· article· en· W4416181540 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Ospina‐Pinillos, Débora L. Shambo-Rodríguez, María Isabel Riaño-Fonseca, Mónica Natalí Sánchez-Nítola, María Fernanda Ramírez-Castro, María Gabriela Calvo-Valderrama, Salvador Camacho, Carlos Gómez–Restrepo, Álvaro Andrés Navarro-Mancilla, Ian B. Hickie, Jo‐An Occhipinti

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondation BotnarPontificia Universidad Javeriana
KeywordsMental healthPsychological interventionDigital healthBridging (networking)Health caremHealthSample (material)Scale (ratio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The growing prevalence of mental health disorders among young people is a pressing global concern, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where access to care is limited. Digital tools, leveraging Information and Communication Technologies, offer promising approaches to bridge these gaps. Objective: This study evaluated the feasibility of 2 digital mental health tools-Youth Collective Minds (YMC), a web-based platform, and Mental Beat (MB; Avicenna Research), a smartphone app-targeted at young individuals aged 18-25 years in Bogotá, Colombia. Methods: Participants (N=35) engaged with both platforms over 3 weeks in this mixed methods feasibility study, which incorporated thematic analysis with a deductive framework for qualitative data. Univariate analyses were performed to examine baseline patterns and data distributions, while bivariate analyses were conducted to investigate relationships and associations between variables, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the platforms' feasibility in the acceptability, demand, implementation, and practicality domains. Results: Participants were primarily women (22/35, 63%) with a median age of 23 (IQR 21-24) years. A total of 1308 annotations were coded: acceptability (annotations=707), demand (annotations=116), implementation (annotations=276), and practicality (annotations=209). Participants highlighted YMC's psychoeducational resources and MB's ease of use as strengths. However, technical issues, including server malfunctions and insufficient feedback, impacted engagement. Quantitatively, 83% (29/35) expressed willingness to reuse YMC and 83% (29/35) MB. Sensor data from MB indicated significant associations between psychological distress and smartphone usage. Participants with higher psychological distress showed greater median battery charging of 585 (IQR 321-615) compared to those without distress, 188 (IQR 42-309; P=.04). Poor sleep quality was also associated with increased median battery discharge of 2867 (IQR 1697.5-3935.5) compared to participants who reported sufficient sleep, 556 (IQR 200-2968; P=.003). GPS data showed that participants who visited more unique locations had lower psychological distress scores, with a negative correlation (r=-0.424; P=.05). In terms of platform usage, in YMC, surveys on emotions (30/35, 86%) and stress (28/35, 80%) were the most frequently completed, while telecounseling services were underused, with only 8.6% (3/35) of participants accessing mental health telecounseling. In MB, surveys of positive emotions (97.1%) and relationships (97.1%) were answered by more than 90% (32/35) of participants. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of digital tools for mental health support among Colombian youth, suggesting that these tools promote self-awareness and mental health management but require technical refinements to enhance engagement. The study's limitations, including a small sample size and short duration, underscore the need for broader research. Implementing participant feedback, strengthening cybersecurity, and scaling these tools could address mental health challenges in low- and middle-income countries, where such interventions are critically needed. These digital platforms represent promising steps toward bridging gaps in mental health care access.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.635
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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