ArticleJMIR formative research2021
Preventive Digital Mental Health for Children in Primary Schools: Acceptability and Feasibility Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing Digital Tools for Mental Health Support in Young Individuals in Colombia: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of mental health problems in children and adolescents in the United Kingdom has significantly increased in recent years, and more people are in contact with mental health services in Greater Manchester than in other parts of the country. Children and young people spend most of their time at school and with teachers. Therefore, schools and other educational settings may be ideal environments in which to identify those experiencing or those at the risk of developing psychological symptoms and provide timely support for children most at risk of mental health or related problems.
objectiveThis study aims to test the feasibility of embedding a low-cost, scalable, and innovative digital mental health intervention in schools in the Greater Manchester area.
methodsTwo components of a 6-week digital intervention were implemented in a primary school in Greater Manchester: Lexplore, a reading assessment using eye-tracking technology to assess reading ability and detect early atypicality, and Lincus, a digital support and well-being monitoring platform.
resultsOf the 115 children approached, 34 (29.6%) consented and took part; of these 34 children, all 34 (100%) completed the baseline Lexplore assessment, and 30 (88%) completed the follow-up. In addition, most children were classified by Lincus as regular (≥1 per week) survey users. Overall, the teaching staff and children found both components of the digital intervention engaging, usable, feasible, and acceptable. Despite the widespread enthusiasm and recognition of the potential added value from staff, we met significant implementation barriers.
conclusionsThis study explored the acceptability and feasibility of a digital mental health intervention for schoolchildren. Further work is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the digital intervention and to understand whether the assessment of reading atypicality using Lexplore can identify those who require additional help and whether they can also be supported by Lincus. This study provides high-quality pilot data and highlights the potential benefits of implementing digital assessment and mental health support tools in a primary school setting.
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.