ArticlePLOS mental health2026
An evaluation of the clinician-facing research dashboards from the Toronto Adolescent and Youth (TAY) Cohort Study in mental health care.
Article in PLOS mental 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dashboards that integrate patient research data for clinical use can streamline information sharing and support clinical care, yet their application in mental health care is underexplored. This study evaluated the clinician-facing dashboards developed from the Toronto Adolescent & Youth (TAY) Cohort Study at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Dashboard reach was assessed through quantitative analyses, while semi-structured interviews with seven clinicians were conducted to explore perceptions of effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Quantitative analyses demonstrate that dashboards are completed for 69% of participants. Following the initial implementation phase, the average time from participant consent to dashboard completion decreases to six months. Qualitative findings suggest that dashboards can serve as a supplementary information source that may aid in supporting clinical decision-making and the integration of patient-reported research data into care. Clinicians also identified areas for improvement, including delays in dashboard completion, difficulty locating dashboards, and inefficient dashboard completion notifications. Clinicians suggested that addressing these areas through improved accessibility, timely data availability, and aligned communication strategies can increase uptake and sustainability. These findings emphasize the value of engaging end users and conducting ongoing evaluation to optimize the integration of research data into clinical workflows using dashboards to enhance mental health care. Future research should further examine factors influencing dashboard use across mental health care settings.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.