ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Evaluating the Efficacy of Ethical Guidelines for Online Screening of Mental Health in South Africa.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. 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.
- The experiences of mental healthcare users regarding the quality of their major depressive disorder treatment.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2025Article
- "Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the rapid growth in digital mental health options, a systematic review conducted on the ethics of developing online mental health screening instruments highlighted that there were no formal guidelines in this area. This lack of formal guidelines and the results of the systematic review led to the development of formal guidelines for online mental health screening tools in South Africa. This study aimed to explore the efficacy of these draft guidelines using a qualitative design with two samples of individuals recognised as experts in the field of mental health. Sample one consisted of a purposive sample of 15 experts who commented on the appropriateness of the draft guidelines. The second sample consisted of 9 experts who completed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument to assess the guidelines. Both samples were in agreement on the relevance of the core content areas in the guidelines, namely purpose and scope, modes of testing, psychometric properties, informed consent, ensuring minimal risk to participants, feedback as well as data security. There was also agreement on the appropriateness of the methods used to develop the guidelines. The use of the guidelines was supported with the suggestion that issues of risk and suicidality be explored further.
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.