ArticleBMJ open2025
Integrating the digital culture of youth in clinical mental health assessments: protocol for the codesign and pilot test of an interview method.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Knowing How to Ask About Digital Culture in Youth Mental Health Care: A Co-Designed Tool.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDigital media practices have varied implications for the mental health of youth, notably as a function of sociocultural and environmental factors. However, there are limited tools available to guide the assessment of digital culture in clinical practice. This study will aim to design and pilot test an interview tool for the assessment of youth digital culture, as a companion to the Cultural Formulation Interview which broadly assesses cultural factors in mental healthcare. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will recruit youth aged 16-35 years and receiving mental healthcare in Montreal, Canada, to codesign (n=10) and evaluate (n=20) the interview tool. We will also recruit clinician participants (n=10) to provide feedback on the interview. The tool will be developed with codesign participants using the nominal group technique and subsequently tested with the evaluation participants. We will provide the evaluation participants and clinicians with a written summary of the interview and will assess their perspectives on the feasibility, acceptability and utility of the interview method through surveys and debriefing interviews. We will conduct reflexive thematic analysis of the interview transcripts and descriptive quantitative analyses of the feasibility, acceptability and utility scores. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Board of the CIUSSS de l'Ouest-de-l'Île-de-Montréal (MP-18-2025-1164). The results will be interpreted in consultation with codesign participants and will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, workshops for clinicians and academic conferences.
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.