ArticleChild and adolescent mental health2025
Commentary: Suggestions for guidance by academics who collaborate with digital companies - a commentary on Bourgaize et al. (2025).
Article in Child and adolescent mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our collective article argues for the development of a clear, shared guidance to support responsible collaborations between academic researchers and digital technology companies, particularly in the fields of education and youth mental health. Drawing on longstanding experience in edtech research, we argue that effective academia-industry collaboration requires clearer institutional support, with explicit guidance at both the contractual and community engagement levels to ensure transparency, fair reporting and the inclusion of all stakeholders. We highlight the challenges researchers face, such as limited legal support and difficulties in publishing negative results, and the need for strong contractual safeguards that protect against the suppression of negative results, define data ownership and set transparent terms for data use, publication timelines and study termination. We also advocate for formalized data-sharing protocols and a centralized, anonymized data repository governed by shared principles, enabling more rigorous cross-study analyses and supporting funders, researchers and policymakers in making evidence-based decisions.
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.