Comprehensive quality evaluation of mental health content

The core answer to the comprehensive quality evaluation of mental health content is: there is no universal quantitative rating scale. The core logic of evaluation is the dynamic balance of the three dimensions of "professional compliance, audience suitability, and social and emotional value." All single-standard evaluations that are divorced from usage scenarios and target audiences are one-sided.

I don’t say this out of thin air. Last year, I helped a district education bureau review the content of popular psychological science in middle schools under its jurisdiction. I stumbled into a big pit when I first started. A resident psychology teacher submitted a short video on "How to Identify Depressed Emotions." According to the traditional professional standard card, the knowledge points are completely in line with the diagnostic specifications of CCMD-3. Even the duration of symptoms and accompanying physiological reactions are clearly marked. I originally wanted to directly give the test an excellent score, but after giving it to several classes in the second grade of junior high school in advance, three children actually ran to the teacher and said, "I have been feeling bad for almost two weeks after taking the exam recently. Do I have depression?" It was only later that I realized that children's judgment threshold for "pathological emotions" is much lower than that of adults. In the content, "being depressed for two consecutive weeks" was placed in the most prominent position at the beginning, which happened to hit the emotional node where their performance was abnormal at the end of the semester, but caused unnecessary panic.

Interestingly, regarding this case, I later talked to practitioners in different fields, and the feedback I received was almost polarizing. Academic researchers mostly stand on the side of content compliance. When I attended an internal seminar of a certain 985 psychology department, an old professor who has taught abnormal psychology for thirty years slammed the table: "Nowadays, online bloggers dare to do science popularization if they can't even distinguish between obsessive-compulsive behavior and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Professional correctness is the bottom line. If you make a mistake in one knowledge point, you are unqualified. No matter how high the traffic is, you will get negative marks." ”However, practitioners who do popular science have completely different views. I know a blogger who has been doing psychological content for 8 years. He previously posted the "Practical Guide to Morita Therapy" that fully complied with academic standards and had only 200 reads. Later, it was changed to "Can't help but wash your hands repeatedly?" "3 Tips to Help You Relieve Anxiety". Although the title simplifies "compulsive behavior", the text specifically adds the reminder "If your mood persists for more than three months and affects your normal life, please seek medical attention in time." The number of reads in the end exceeded 100,000, and there were hundreds of messages saying that they couldn't distinguish between normal emotions and symptoms before. After reading it, they finally knew when to see a doctor and when to adjust themselves. “No matter how professional the content is, it means nothing if no one reads it. Do you think my content is good or bad? ”When she asked me, I really couldn't answer.

In addition to the contradiction between professionalism and communication, what is more difficult to weigh is the evaluation standard of "effect". Last year, a parent came to me and said that her child was rebellious. She read a certain blogger's "Parent-Child Communication Skills" and it was really useful when she went back and used it. The child was finally willing to talk to her. She felt that the content in that article was perfect. I went to look for it and it said, "When your child talks back, you should shut up first and wait until he vents before speaking." This method is indeed useful for children with avoidant attachment - they are originally afraid of being rejected by their parents, but if you give them enough space, they will be willing to open up. However, if it is a child with anxious attachment, once you shut up, he will only think that you don't care about his emotions, and the trouble will only become more violent. Later, I also met several parents who used the same method but had a more difficult relationship with their children. Do you think this content should be given a high score or a low score?

I sometimes feel that evaluating psychological content is like an old Chinese doctor trying to make prescriptions. First of all, the medicinal materials cannot be fake, and you cannot eat aconite as ginseng. This is the professional bottom line.； Secondly, we have to treat the patient’s symptoms and prescribe severe cold medicine for people with cold body. No matter how expensive the medicinal materials are, they can be harmful to people. ； Finally, we have to consider whether someone will take this prescription and randomly grab the medicine. It is obviously prescribed for A, but B drinks it himself if he thinks it is suitable. If there is a problem, it must be considered within the scope of the prescription.

I have been doing psychological content review for nearly five years, and I have secretly saved up a small ruler that has not been included in any official standards: After reading the content, do you feel more at ease and have a direction to solve the problem, or do you feel more anxious and feel that you have problems everywhere? I once read the content of a blogger with millions of fans, saying that "people who lack love in childhood cannot handle intimate relationships in their lives." The comment area was full of users crying and saying, "I am, I deserve to be orphaned." Even though his content quoted several studies from core journals, my rating was unqualified - the background of mental health content is always support, not the possibility of nailing a person.

I had dinner with the attending physician of the Provincial Jingwei Center a while ago, and I particularly agree with what he said: "Don't create so many complicated rating items, just depend on the user's first reaction after reading it. If he thinks, "Oh, I'm not alone, I can still try," then the content will be good. ”To put it bluntly, the evaluation of mental health content ultimately comes down to "people" themselves. All standards and all dimensions are ultimately designed to give people who see the content more courage to live a good life.