Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31799937›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2019

Moderated Online Social Therapy: Viewpoint on the Ethics and Design Principles of a Web-Based Therapy System.

Simon D'Alfonso, Jessica Phillips, Lee Valentine, John Gleeson, Mario Alvarez-Jimenez

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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The growing field of digital psychiatry: current evidence and the future of apps, social media, chatbots, and virtual reality.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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.

Simon D'AlfonsoSchool of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7407-8730
Jessica PhillipsOrygen, Parkville, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4166-6565
Lee ValentineOrygen, Parkville, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7481-6537
John GleesonSchool of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7969-492X
Mario Alvarez-JimenezOrygen, Parkville, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3535-9086

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The modern omnipresence of social media and social networking sites (SNSs) brings with it a range of important research questions. One of these concerns the impact of SNS use on mental health and well-being, a question that has been pursued in depth by scholars in the psychological sciences and the field of human-computer interaction. Despite this attention, the design choices made in the development of SNSs and the notion of well-being employed to evaluate such systems require further scrutiny. In this viewpoint paper, we examine the strategic design choices made in our development of an enclosed SNS for young people experiencing mental ill-health in terms of ethical and persuasive design and in terms of how it fosters well-being. In doing so, we critique the understanding of well-being that is used in much of the existing literature to make claims about the impact of a given technology on well-being. We also demonstrate how the holistic concept of eudaimonic well-being and ethical design of SNSs can complement one another.

Indexed as

ethical designeudaimoniapersuasive technologysocial networkWeb-based interventionwell-being

Identifiers

PMID31799937
PMCPMC6920904

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.