Digital Methods for the Spiritual and Mental Health of Generation Z: Scoping Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Generation Z (Gen Z) includes individuals born between 1995 and 2012. These individuals experience high rates of anxiety and depression. Most Gen Z individuals identify with being spiritual, and aspects from religion and spirituality can be integrated into mental health treatment and care as both are related to lower levels of depression. However, research on the spiritual and mental health of Gen Z is sparse. To date, there are no systematic or scoping reviews on digital methods to address the spiritual and mental health of Gen Z.

Objective

This scoping review aimed to describe the current state of digital methods to address spiritual and mental health among Gen Z, identify the knowledge gaps, and make suggestions for how to leverage digital spiritual and mental health interventions for Gen Z.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Education Full Text, Google Scholar, SocIndex, and Sociological Abstracts. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) study population born between 1995 and 2012 (ie, Gen Z); (2) reporting on spiritual health or well-being, spirituality or religion, and mental health or well-being; (3) reporting on using digital methods; (4) publication in 1996 or beyond; (5) human subject research; (6) full text availability in English; (7) primary research study design; and (8) peer-reviewed article. Two authors screened articles and subsequently extracted data from the included articles to describe the available evidence.

Results

A total of 413 articles were screened at the title and abstract levels, of which 27 were further assessed with full text for eligibility. Five studies met the inclusion criteria, and data were extracted to summarize study characteristics and findings. The studies were performed across 4 different countries. There were 2 mixed-methods studies (South Africa and Canada), 2 cross-sectional studies (China and United States), and 1 randomized controlled trial (United States). Of these studies, only 2 discussed digital interventions (a text messaging–based intervention to improve spiritual and mental health, and a feasibility study for a mental health app). Other studies had a digital component with minor or unclear spiritual and mental health measures. Overall, there was a lack of consistency in how spiritual and mental health were measured.

Conclusions

Few studies have focused on assessing the spiritual and mental health of Gen Z in the digital context, and no research to date has examined a digital spiritual and mental health application among Gen Z. Research is needed to inform the development and evaluation of approaches to address the spiritual and mental health of Gen Z via digital means (eg, mobile apps).

Related collections

Most cited references 35

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

0 comments Cited 6999 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

Robert L Spitzer, Kurt Kroenke, Janet B W Williams … (2006)

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.

0 comments Cited 6973 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

K Kroenke, R L Spitzer, J. Williams (2001)

While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-9 is the depression module, which scores each of the 9 DSM-IV criteria as "0" (not at all) to "3" (nearly every day). The PHQ-9 was completed by 6,000 patients in 8 primary care clinics and 7 obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Construct validity was assessed using the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey, self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. Criterion validity was assessed against an independent structured mental health professional (MHP) interview in a sample of 580 patients. As PHQ-9 depression severity increased, there was a substantial decrease in functional status on all 6 SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and health care utilization increased. Using the MHP reinterview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-9 score > or =10 had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% for major depression. PHQ-9 scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represented mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity. These characteristics plus its brevity make the PHQ-9 a useful clinical and research tool.

0 comments Cited 5907 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Susanna Y Park:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3256-9651

SkylightRadiant Foundation55 N 300 W Suite 800Salt Lake City, UT, 84101United States1 (720) 675 7228susanna@skylight.org

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Interact J Med Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Interact J Med Res

Journal ID (publisher-id): IJMR

Title: Interactive Journal of Medical Research

Publisher: JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )

ISSN (Electronic): 1929-073X

Publication date Collection: 2024

Publication date (Electronic): 6 February 2024

Volume: 13

Electronic Location Identifier: e48929

Affiliations

[1 ] Skylight Radiant Foundation Salt Lake City, UT United States

[2 ] Fit Minded Inc Phoenix, AZ United States

[3 ] Arizona State University Tempe, AZ United States

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Susanna Y Park susanna@ 123456skylight.org

Author information

Susanna Y Park https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3256-9651

Bridgette Do https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1601-9139

Jacqlyn Yourell https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2958-1411

Janice Hermer https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9785-1124

Jennifer Huberty https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0276-4640

Article

Publisher ID: v13i1e48929

DOI: 10.2196/48929

PMC ID: 10879969

PubMed ID: 38261532

SO-VID: c636a6d3-1b58-4ff8-86c5-b8a3aa2062d3

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.i-jmr.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

History

Date received : 11 May 2023

Date revision requested : 14 September 2023

Date revision received : 11 October 2023

Date accepted : 15 January 2024

Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
- celebrating 25 years of open access