ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Technology-mediated screening interviews for youth mental health: Content validation, randomized controlled trial, and expert evaluation.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early identification of mental health disorders in children and adolescents is essential for optimal outcomes, yet access to specialist psychiatric assessment remains limited by severe workforce shortages and geographic barriers. This study examines content validity, feasibility and acceptability from youths' perspective, and clinical utility from experts' perspective of technology-mediated screening interview for youth mental health assessment through three sequential investigations (ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN68006163, registered on 16/04/2025). First, content validity was established through expert evaluation, demonstrating that all screening questions met established psychometric criteria for relevance and clarity. Next, a randomized controlled trial evaluated feasibility and acceptability (satisfaction and willingness to repeat with the same modality) across psychiatrist-led, chatbot, and robot modalities among 106 young patients aged 10-19 receiving mental health treatment. Finally, expert clinical evaluation of recorded interviews assessed clinical utility across modalities. Psychiatrist-led interviews achieved higher satisfaction scores, particularly for communication quality, while willingness to repeat screening did not differ significantly across modalities. Personality characteristics, specifically conscientiousness and open-mindedness, predicted satisfaction with communication across all conditions. Finally, expert clinical evaluation of recorded interviews revealed comparable ratings across modalities for most dimensions, with only alignment with other assessment methods favoring psychiatrist-led approaches over robot-delivered interviews. The results show technology-mediated screening, using the proposed interview, demonstrates acceptable content validity, user feasibility from youth perspective, and clinical utility from expert perspectives. These findings support implementation of accessible, self-administered screening tools as complementary first-step assessments that maintain clinical relevance while expanding access to mental health evaluation for youth populations in underserved settings where specialist availability is limited.
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.