Cited by 30Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Facilitating mental health help-seeking by young adults with a dedicated online program: a feasibility study of Link

Open access
Kauer, Sylvia D, Buhagiar, Kerrie, Blake, Victoria, Cotton, Sue, Sanci, Lena·2017·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: To explore the feasibility of a dedicated online youth mental health help-seeking intervention and to evaluate using a randomised controlled trial (RCT) study design in order to identify any modifications needed before commencement of the full-scale RCT. Design: A pilot RCT with 1:1 randomisation to either the intervention or comparison arm. Setting: An online study conducted Australia-wide. Participants: 18–25 year olds living in Australia were recruited via social media. Intervention: Link is a dedicated online mental health help-seeking navigation tool that matches user’s mental health issues, severity and service-type preferences (online, phone and face-to-face) with appropriate youth-friendly services. The comparison arm was usual help-seeking strategies with a link to Google.com. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the number of acceptability and feasibility criteria successfully met. Intervention and study design acceptability and feasibility were assessed by nine criteria. Secondary outcomes, via online surveys (at baseline, 1 week and 1 month) measured service use, help-seeking intentions, psychological distress, barriers to help-seeking, attitudes towards mental health help-seeking, mental health literacy, satisfaction and trust. Results: Fifty-one participants were randomised (intervention: n=24; comparison: n=27). Three out of four of the intervention and two out of five of the study design criteria were met. Unmet criteria could be addressed by modifications to the study design. Qualitative analysis demonstrated that Link was useful to participants and may have increased their positive experiences towards help-seeking. There were no observable differences between arms in any outcome measures and no harms were detected. Conclusion: Generally, the Link intervention and study design were acceptable and feasible with modifications suggested for the four out of nine unmet criteria. The main trial will hence have shorter surveys and a simpler recruitment process, use positive affect as the primary outcome and will not link to Google.com for the comparison arm. Trial registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000386639.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015303

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [4]King RK, Bickman L, Shochet I, et al Use of the internet for provision of better counselling and psychotherapy services to young people, their families and carers. Psychother Aust 2010; 17: 66– 74.
  2. [36]Wilson CJ, Rickwood DJ, Ciarrochi J, et al Adolescent barriers to seeking professional psychological help for personal-emotional and suicidal problems In: 9th annual conference for suicide prevention Australia 2002.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kauer, S. D., Buhagiar, K., Blake, V., Cotton, S., & Sanci, L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • ReachOut Australia, Sydney, Australia
Corresponding author
Kauer, Sylvia D
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-07
Volume
7
Issue
7
Pages
e015303
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2735622089
Cited by
30
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
youth mental health, help-seeking, young adults, mental health literacy, help-seeking barriers, help-seeking intentions, service utilization, intervention feasibility, acceptability
MeSH terms
Help-Seeking Behavior, Adolescent, Adult, Australia, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Software, Internet, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review