Digital Media Literacy Group for Adolescents in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Feasibility Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Digital media literacy (DML) may help adolescents to handle online risks, misinformation, digital violence, and problematic media use more reflectively. However, structured interventions for adolescents in child and adolescent psychiatry (CAP), particularly in inpatient and day-treatment settings, remain scarce. Objective: This study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived usefulness of a manualized DML group for adolescents in CAP and explored preliminary changes in digital self-efficacy and critical media literacy (CML). Methods: A prospective single-arm feasibility study with an embedded pretest-posttest and session-level process evaluation was conducted across 3 CAP clinics in Germany. The intervention comprised 6 weekly 60-minute, manualized modules covering data protection, social media use, and digital violence. Sessions were delivered in an open-group format by trained clinical staff. Recruitment was embedded in routine care, and clinical group participation was independent of study evaluation. Adolescents and facilitators completed paper-and-pencil questionnaires at baseline (T1), after each session, and post intervention or discharge (T2). Analyses were primarily descriptive; exploratory pre-post analyses used paired t tests. Results: The analytic feasibility sample comprised 121 adolescents who attended at least 1 module. T1 data were available for n=60 and T2 data for n=38. Overall, adolescents attended a median of 2 modules (IQR 1-3; mean 2.46, SD 1.65, range 1-6), and 45 attended at least 3 modules. Session-level ratings indicated moderate to high acceptability. Facilitator-rated manual fidelity was moderate to high. Retrospective T2 ratings indicated moderate to high helpfulness (n=38; mean 3.55, SD 1.18; median 4.0, IQR 3.0-4.0) and satisfaction (n=38; mean 3.79, SD 1.07; median 4.0, IQR 3.0-5.0), with no significant differences between completers and noncompleters for helpfulness (U=125.00; P=.60) or satisfaction (U=122.00; P=.53). Among completers (≥3 modules and T2 data; n=28), didactic method acceptability was moderate (mean 2.85, SD 0.60), and perceived learning was moderate to high (mean 3.33, SD 0.95). Exploratory pre-post analyses indicated an increase in perceived self-efficacy for recognizing misinformation (n=21; T1 mean 2.94, SD 0.59; T2 mean 3.38, SD 0.63; t20=2.58; Hedges g=0.56, 95% CI 0.09-1.02; P=.02). Overall CML increased descriptively (P=.07), whereas digital media self-efficacy did not change significantly (P=.27). Conclusions: Our manualized DML group was feasible and acceptable in routine CAP. Open-group delivery and variable treatment stays limited intervention exposure and data completeness. Findings suggest that brief DML groups may address safety- and knowledge-oriented competencies, but controlled mixed methods studies with systematic recruitment and missing-data documentation are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".