BackgroundMoodscope is an entirely service-user-developed online mood-tracking and feedback tool with built-in social support, designed to stabilize and improve mood. Many free internet tools are available with no assessment of acceptability, validity or usefulness. This study provides an exemplar for future assessments.MethodA mixed-methods approach was used. Participants with mild to moderate low mood used the tool for 3 months. Correlations between weekly assessments using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) with daily Moodscope scores were examined to provide validity data. After 3 months, focus groups and questionnaires assessed use and usability of the tool.ResultsMoodscope scores were correlated significantly with scores on the PHQ-9 and the GAD-7 for all weeks, suggesting a valid measure of mood. Low rates of use, particularly toward the end of the trial, demonstrate potential problems relating to ongoing motivation. Questionnaire data indicated that the tool was easy to learn and use, but there were concerns about the mood adjectives, site layout and the buddy system. Participants in the focus groups found the tool acceptable overall, but felt clarification of the role and target group was required.ConclusionsWith appropriate adjustments, Moodscope could be a useful tool for clinicians as a way of initially identifying patterns and influences on mood in individuals experiencing low mood. For those who benefit from ongoing mood tracking and the social support provided by the buddy system, Moodscope could be an ongoing adjunct to therapy.

No abstract

No abstract

This article discusses some of the ethical and methodological challenges experienced throughout a doctoral study focusing on boarding house residents in Sydney, Australia, particularly participants’ fear of retribution. Informing the research were forty interviews with a range of participants including current and former licensed boarding house residents, proprietors of boarding houses, and staff of community organizations and government agencies providing support services or monitoring the conditions in boarding houses. The article discusses and analyses the complexity and understandings of anonymity, confidentiality, informed consent and the meanings and implications of de-identification. Some of the strategies to address these complexities are presented and are significant for qualitative researchers, particularly doctoral and early career researchers.

No abstract