ArticlePeerJ2015
A questions-based investigation of consumer mental-health information.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mapping of Crowdsourcing in Health: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Pooled it
- Article
- Exploring patient information needs in type 2 diabetes: A cross sectional study of questions.PloS one · 2018Article
- Ethical perspectives on recommending digital technology for patients with mental illness.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2017Review
- Online information seeking by patients with bipolar disorder: results from an international multisite survey.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the wealth of mental-health information available online to consumers, research has shown that the mental-health information needs of consumers are not being met. This study contributes to that research by soliciting consumer questions directly, categorizing them, analyzing their form, and assessing the extent to which they can be answered from a trusted and vetted source of online information, namely the website of the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). As an alternative to surveys and analyses of online activity, this study shows how consumer questions provide new insight into what consumers do not know and how they express their information needs. The study crowdsourced 100 consumer questions through Amazon Inc.'s Mechanical Turk. Categorization of the questions shows broad agreement with earlier studies in terms of the content of consumer questions. It also suggests that consumers' grasp of mental health issues may be low compared to other health topics. The majority of the questions (74%) were simple in form, with the remainder being multi-part, multifaceted or narrative. Even simple-form questions could, however, have complex interpretations. Fifty four questions were submitted to the search box at the NIMH website. For 32 questions, no answer could be found in the top one to three documents returned. Inadequacies in the search and retrieval technology deployed at websites account for some of the failure to find answers. The nature of consumer questions in mental health also plays a role. A question that has a false presupposition is less likely to have an answer in trusted and vetted sources of information. Consumer questions are also expressed with a degree of specificity that makes the retrieval of relevant information difficult. The significance of this study is that it shows what an analysis of consumer mental-health questions can tell us about consumer information needs and it provides new insight into the difficulties facing consumers looking for answers to their questions in online resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.