Trial reportBMC psychiatry2021
Users' perceptions about receiving personalized depression risk information: findings from a qualitative study.
Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo understand users' perceptions about receiving their personalized depression risk score and to gain an understanding about how to improve the efficiency of risk communication from the user perspective.
methodsA qualitative study embedded in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on evaluating the impact of providing personalized depression risk information on psychological harms and benefits. The participants (20 males and 20 females) were randomly selected from the intervention arm of the RCT after the 12-month assessment. The qualitative interviews were conducted through telephone, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. We conducted a content analysis to describe the content and contextual meaning of data collected from participants.
resultsThe first theme explained the motivation for receiving a risk score. Most participants chose to receive their personalised depression risk score with the goal of improving their self-awareness. The results revealed three sub-themes surrounding perceptions and implication of receiving their risk score: positive, negative, and neutral. Most participants found that receiving their score was positive because it improved their awareness of their mental health, but some participants could see that some people would have negative feelings when getting the score causing them to be more likely to get depression. The final theme focussed on improvements including: the best delivery methods, having resources and strategies, and targeting younger people.
conclusionThe most significant motivation for, and benefit of receiving one's personalized depression risk score was improved awareness of one's mental health. A comprehensive risk communication program may improve the uptake and maximize the impact on behavior changes and risk reduction.
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.