Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28694345›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

Facilitating mental health help-seeking by young adults with a dedicated online program: a feasibility study of Link.

Sylvia D Kauer, Kerrie Buhagiar, Victoria Blake, Sue Cotton, Lena Sanci

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Meeting Users Where They Are: User-centered Design of an Automated Text Messaging Tool to Support the Mental Health of Young Adults.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2022
    Article
  12. "I Wanted to See How Bad it Was": Online Self-screening as a Critical Transition Point Among Young Adults with Common Mental Health Conditions.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sylvia D KauerDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.
Kerrie BuhagiarReachOut Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Victoria BlakeReachOut Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Sue CottonOrygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Parkville, Australia.
Lena SanciDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the feasibility of a dedicated online youth mental health help-seeking intervention and to evaluate using a randomised controlled trial (RCT) study design in order to identify any modifications needed before commencement of the full-scale RCT.

designA pilot RCT with 1:1 randomisation to either the intervention or comparison arm.

settingAn online study conducted Australia-wide.

participants18-25 year olds living in Australia were recruited via social media.

interventionLink is a dedicated online mental health help-seeking navigation tool that matches user's mental health issues, severity and service-type preferences (online, phone and face-to-face) with appropriate youth-friendly services. The comparison arm was usual help-seeking strategies with a link to Google.com.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the number of acceptability and feasibility criteria successfully met. Intervention and study design acceptability and feasibility were assessed by nine criteria. Secondary outcomes, via online surveys (at baseline, 1 week and 1 month) measured service use, help-seeking intentions, psychological distress, barriers to help-seeking, attitudes towards mental health help-seeking, mental health literacy, satisfaction and trust.

resultsFifty-one participants were randomised (intervention: n=24; comparison: n=27). Three out of four of the intervention and two out of five of the study design criteria were met. Unmet criteria could be addressed by modifications to the study design. Qualitative analysis demonstrated that Link was useful to participants and may have increased their positive experiences towards help-seeking. There were no observable differences between arms in any outcome measures and no harms were detected.

conclusionGenerally, the Link intervention and study design were acceptable and feasible with modifications suggested for the four out of nine unmet criteria. The main trial will hence have shorter surveys and a simpler recruitment process, use positive affect as the primary outcome and will not link to Google.com for the comparison arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000386639.

Indexed as

Help-Seeking BehaviorInternetMental HealthSoftwareAdolescentAdultAustraliaFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsRegression AnalysisSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultChild & adolescent psychiatryInformation technologyPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID28694345
PMCPMC5541492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.