ArticleChild psychiatry and human development2026
Application of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference to Adolescent Mental Health Interventions: A Case Study for Hopelessness.
Article in Child psychiatry and human development, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a clinical change metric that can offset setbacks in statistical and effect size approaches. MCIDs may be especially important for characterizing change mechanisms to understand intervention impact. However, MCIDs are rarely examined within the context of mental health-based interventions. The current study employed anchor- and distribution-based methods to derive MCIDs for hopelessness (a change mechanism) within a dataset for publicly accessible, open access interventions. Derived MCIDs were then examined within a randomized controlled trial dataset to understand their relation to prospective depressive symptoms. A cohort of 917 youth aged 11-17 years old (64.4% female, White: 30.3%) participated in brief, digital, self-guided interventions targeting depressive symptoms within the open access dataset. A separate cohort of 1,282 youth aged 13-16 years old (87.9% female, White: 66.7%) engaged with the same interventions in the randomized controlled trial dataset. MCIDs ranged from 0.13 to 0.38 units of change on a 4-point hopelessness scale. After correcting for multiple hypotheses, the MCIDs derived via the publicly accessible, open access interventions dataset did not translate to significant (q < 0.05) differences in three-month post-intervention depressive symptom scores within the randomized controlled trial dataset. Findings from this study led to important considerations for leveraging MCIDs within mental health interventions and outline a potential empirical agenda to further characterize the utility of this change metric.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41855002What 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.