Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38145477›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Exploring Counselor Practices and Risk Assessment in a Proactive Digital Intervention Through Instagram in Young People: Qualitative Study.

Natalie Peart, Sarah Hetrick, Kerry Gibson, Karolina Stasiak

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Natalie PeartDepartment of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3515-3106
Sarah HetrickDepartment of Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2532-0142
Kerry GibsonDepartment of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2921-5032
Karolina StasiakDepartment of Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1153-3123
University of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuicide is one of the leading causes of preventable death in young people, and the way young people are communicating suicidality has evolved to include web-based disclosures and help-seeking. To date, mental health intervention services, both on the web and in person, have been conceived in the traditional model, whereby support is provided if a young person (or their family) actively seeks out that support when distressed. On the other hand, proactive outreach is an innovative approach to intervention that has been shown to be effective in other areas of health care. Live for Tomorrow chat was delivered on Instagram and comprised of counselors who reach out to provide brief person-centered intervention to young people who post content indicating distress or suicidality.

objectiveOur aim was to explore how counselors engaged young people in a proactive digital intervention and how risk assessment was conducted in this context.

methodsWe analyzed 35 transcripts of conversations between counselors and young people aged 13-25 years using the 6-step approach of Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis. These transcripts included a counseling intervention and a follow-up chat that was aimed at collecting feedback about the counseling intervention.

resultsA total of 7 themes emerged: using microskills to facilitate conversations, building confidence and capacity to cope with change, seeking permission when approaching conversations about suicidality or self-harm, conversations about suicidality following a structured approach, providing assurances of confidentiality, validation of the experience of suicidality, and using conversations about suicidality to identify interventions. Counselors were able to translate counseling microskills and structured questioning regarding suicidality into a digital context. In particular, in the digital context, counselors would use the young person's post and emojis to further conversations and build rapport.

conclusionsThe findings highlight the importance of the counselor's role to listen, empathize, validate, and empower young people and that all these skills can be transferred to a digital text counseling intervention. Counselors used a structured approach to understanding suicidality in a permission-seeking, validating, and confidential manner to identify interventions with the young person. These practices allowed the conversation to move beyond traditional risk assessment practices to meaningful conversations about suicidality. Moving beyond traditional risk assessment practices and into conversations about suicidality allowed for the validation of the young person's experience and exploration of interventions and support that made sense and were seen to be helpful to the young person. This study highlighted the benefits of a proactive digital chat-based intervention, which is a novel approach to engaging with young people experiencing psychological distress and suicidality. Furthermore, this research demonstrates the feasibility and benefit of moving mental health intervention and support to a medium where young people are currently disclosing distress and intervening proactively.

Indexed as

counselingdistressempathizeinternetmental healthonline textproactivequalitative studyrisk assessmentself-harmsocial mediasuicidevalidationyouth

Identifiers

PMID38145477
PMCPMC10775024
OpenAlexW4385844098

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.