Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35854237›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2022

Developing good practice indicators to assist mental health practitioners to converse with young people about their online activities and impact on mental health: a two-panel mixed-methods Delphi study.

Lucy Biddle, Raphael Rifkin-Zybutz, Jane Derges, Nicholas Turner, Helen Bould, Felicity Sedgewick, Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Paul Moran, Myles-Jay Linton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2022. 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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors.

Lucy BiddlePopulation Health Sciences, Bristol University Medical School, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, UK. Lucy.Biddle@bristol.ac.uk.
Raphael Rifkin-Zybutz *Centre for Academic Mental Health, Bristol University Medical School, Oakfield House, Oakfield Road, Bristol, UK.
Jane Derges *Population Health Sciences, Bristol University Medical School, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, UK.
Nicholas TurnerPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol University Medical School, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, UK.
Helen BouldCentre for Academic Mental Health, Bristol University Medical School, Oakfield House, Oakfield Road, Bristol, UK.
Felicity SedgewickSchool of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rachael Gooberman-HillBristol University Medical School, Learning and Research Building, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Level 1, Bristol, UK.
Paul MoranThe National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Myles-Jay LintonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol University Medical School, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T046716/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline activity has been linked to poor mental health in children and young people, particularly those with existing vulnerability who may inadvertently or otherwise access harmful content. It is suggested health and social care practitioners should address online activity during mental health consultations, but guidance about acceptable or effective ways to do this is lacking. This study sought to derive good practice guidance to support mental health practitioners to engage young people in conversations about their online activities and impact on mental health.

methodsA mixed-methods Delphi (consensus) study was conducted with a panel of mental health practitioners (n = 21) and a panel of young people (n = 22). Practitioners worked with children or young adults in the UK, mostly in statutory services (80.9%), in varied clinical roles, with 2 - 30 years of experience and most were female (87.5%). Young people were mostly female (77.3%), 13-22 years old, reported varied mental health diagnoses and had sought help from services. Across 3 rounds, panellists completed questionnaires which involved rating agreement with statements and answering open-ended questions. Iterative analysis informed subsequent questionnaire content. The percentage of participants rating their level of agreement with each statement was calculated. The threshold for inclusion as a good practice indicator (GPI) was 75% across both panels. Thematic analysis was used for free-text data.

resultsTwenty-seven GPIs emerged covering 'who' (which young people) should be asked about online activities, 'when', 'what' should be discussed, and with what 'outcome'. Panels agreed conversations should be initiated with all young people from first meeting and regularly thereafter, with 'red flags' indicating a conversation may be pertinent. Core topics were identified with additional areas for patients presenting with disordered eating or self-harm. Panels emphasised conversations should be fluid, normalised, and encourage reflection and self-awareness.

conclusionsMental health practitioners could empower young people to exercise agency in relation to online safety and capitalise on positive features. Findings also identify training needs for practitioners. Further research should explore real-world application of the GPIs and transferability to underrepresented groups within our panels, such as males and younger children. Ethnicity and deprivation were not recorded.

Indexed as

Mental HealthSelf-Injurious BehaviorAdolescentAdultChildConsensusDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleSocial SupportYoung AdultAdolescentChildrenInternetMental disorderSocial mediaYoung people

Identifiers

PMID35854237
PMCPMC9297563

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.