> How do you propose to use RCTs to test the claim?
I'm not proposing to use RCTs to test the claim. I'm proposing that the conclusions be scrutinized to the same degree we scruitinize other claims made without RCTs. Nutrition studies are a great example that get routinely criticized here because they also rarely backed by RCTs. I'm proposing the same standard of critique.
> As an aside, do you think that the data, not the hypothesis, is accurate (i.e., that mental health has declined in teens)?
I haven't seen the data nor the data collection methodology. Even so, there are basic concerns that relate to health and specifically mental health that we can ask.
Did reporting standards remain consistent throughout the study period? If we assume they did, this assumption becomes "baked" into the conclusions. Assumptions don't merely vanish once we reach a conclusion.
Secondly, mental health(/illness) is both an umbrella term and one subject to operationalization errors more than say(extending the analogy) weight is. We would be suspicious if a nutritional study measuring health outcomes relied on self-reported bodyweight. We should be equally suspicious when mental health studies rely on self-reporting. I'm not arguing here that we should instead fMRI subjects, just that having an appropriate level of self-reporting suspicion is healthy, rational, skepticism.
Finally, unlike weight, measuring mental health has unique and different operationalization characteristics. The connection between weight and physical health, as far as we can both agree, has a different associative-conceptual connection than self-harm admittance and mental health. We should reasonably rule out basic alternative hypotheses. Were there factors (economic, social, institutional) that could explain(even partially) the change in admittance rates? Did admittance standards change during the timeframe? Even a beneficial change, like awareness-raising campaigns could result in increased admittence. See Logic's song “1-800-273-8255”[1] as a good reason hotline calls increased after it's release that is arguably a good thing rather than indicative of a negative effect.
At the end of the day, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit left to explore. Coupled with the previously mentioned skepticism, I wouldn't exactly put my faith in this. Let's be mature and say that's different from saying it's wrong. We're all invested in finding out the exact nature of this phenomenon.
I'm not proposing to use RCTs to test the claim. I'm proposing that the conclusions be scrutinized to the same degree we scruitinize other claims made without RCTs. Nutrition studies are a great example that get routinely criticized here because they also rarely backed by RCTs. I'm proposing the same standard of critique.
> As an aside, do you think that the data, not the hypothesis, is accurate (i.e., that mental health has declined in teens)?
I haven't seen the data nor the data collection methodology. Even so, there are basic concerns that relate to health and specifically mental health that we can ask.
Did reporting standards remain consistent throughout the study period? If we assume they did, this assumption becomes "baked" into the conclusions. Assumptions don't merely vanish once we reach a conclusion.
Secondly, mental health(/illness) is both an umbrella term and one subject to operationalization errors more than say(extending the analogy) weight is. We would be suspicious if a nutritional study measuring health outcomes relied on self-reported bodyweight. We should be equally suspicious when mental health studies rely on self-reporting. I'm not arguing here that we should instead fMRI subjects, just that having an appropriate level of self-reporting suspicion is healthy, rational, skepticism.
Finally, unlike weight, measuring mental health has unique and different operationalization characteristics. The connection between weight and physical health, as far as we can both agree, has a different associative-conceptual connection than self-harm admittance and mental health. We should reasonably rule out basic alternative hypotheses. Were there factors (economic, social, institutional) that could explain(even partially) the change in admittance rates? Did admittance standards change during the timeframe? Even a beneficial change, like awareness-raising campaigns could result in increased admittence. See Logic's song “1-800-273-8255”[1] as a good reason hotline calls increased after it's release that is arguably a good thing rather than indicative of a negative effect.
At the end of the day, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit left to explore. Coupled with the previously mentioned skepticism, I wouldn't exactly put my faith in this. Let's be mature and say that's different from saying it's wrong. We're all invested in finding out the exact nature of this phenomenon.
1. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/mental-healt...