Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30994470›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2019

Young People's Satisfaction With the Online Mental Health Service eheadspace: Development and Implementation of a Service Satisfaction Measure.

Debra Rickwood, Alison Wallace, Vanessa Kennedy, Shaunagh O'Sullivan, Nic Telford, Steven Leicester

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Debra Rickwoodheadspace National Youth Mental Health Foundation, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4227-0231
Alison Wallaceheadspace National Youth Mental Health Foundation, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5591-3809
Vanessa Kennedyheadspace National Youth Mental Health Foundation, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6421-5738
Shaunagh O'Sullivanheadspace National Youth Mental Health Foundation, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5234-5727
Nic Telfordheadspace National Youth Mental Health Foundation, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8370-1934
Steven Leicesterheadspace National Youth Mental Health Foundation, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3903-7014

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline youth mental health services are an expanding approach to meeting service need and can be used as the first step in a stepped-care approach. However, limited evidence exists regarding satisfaction with online services, and there is no standardized service satisfaction measure.

objectiveThis study implemented an online youth mental health service satisfaction questionnaire within eheadspace, an online youth mental health service. The aims were to test the questionnaire's psychometric properties and identify current levels of satisfaction among service users, as well as to identify client and service contact characteristics that affect satisfaction.

methodsData were collected from 2280 eheadspace clients via an online questionnaire advertised and accessed through the eheadspace service platform between September 2016 and February 2018. Client and service contact characteristics, potential outcomes, and session and service feedback data were collected.

resultsThe service satisfaction questionnaire demonstrated high internal consistency for the overall satisfaction scale (alpha=.95) and its three subscales: session satisfaction, potential outcomes, and service satisfaction. A three-factor model was the best fit to the data, although including a higher order unidimensional construct of overall satisfaction was also a reasonable fit. Overall, young people were very satisfied with eheadspace (mean 3.60, SD 0.83). Service characteristics, but not client characteristics, were significantly associated with satisfaction. Young people were more satisfied with eheadspace when they had greater engagement as evident through receiving esupport rather than briefer service provision, having a longer session and greater interaction with the clinician, and not previously attending a face-to-face headspace center.

conclusionsThe online youth mental health service satisfaction questionnaire developed for and implemented in eheadspace showed good psychometric properties. The measure is brief, has good internal consistency, and has a clear factor structure. The measure could be adapted for use in other online youth mental health services. The young people using eheadspace and completing the feedback survey were highly satisfied. Greater engagement with the online service was shown to be associated with greater satisfaction. No specific client demographic groups were shown to be more or less satisfied.

Indexed as

adolescentcounselingfeedbackinternetmental healthsatisfactiontelehealthtelemedicineyoung people

Identifiers

PMID30994470
PMCPMC6492057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.