Mixed methods study reveals key crisis hotline needs in adolescents, indicating that emotional safety, non-judgmental support, and empowerment drive engagement.
Psychological assistance hotlines provide low-threshold crisis support, but evidence is limited on how Chinese adolescents define useful hotline care. To identify adolescents’ hotline-service needs and develop a preliminary context-specific scale. In an exploratory sequential mixed methods study, 12 adolescent hotline users completed semi-structured interviews analyzed with Colaizzi’s method. The resulting 11-item Adolescent Psychological Assistance Hotline Service Need Scale (APAHSNS) was administered to 386 school-based adolescents. The sample was randomly divided for exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 193) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 193). Group comparisons, correlations, and multiple regression were conducted. Qualitative analysis identified emotional safety, non-judgmental support, and closed-loop empowerment needs. The APAHSNS showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.883) and content validity (S-CVI/Ave = 0.927). EFA explained 69.98% of variance, and CFA supported the three-factor structure (χ²/df = 1.39, CFI = 0.980, TLI = 0.973, RMSEA = 0.045, SRMR = 0.044). The total score was 3.73 ± 0.62. More frequent negative emotions (β = 0.329), prior hotline use (β = 0.258), lower perceived social support (β=−0.194), and older age (β = 0.207) were associated with higher need scores (adjusted R²=0.369; all P < 0.001). Overall, 72.3% were willing to consider AI-enabled functions. In this regional school-based sample, adolescents’ hotline needs formed a three-dimensional structure. The findings provide preliminary measurement evidence and hypotheses requiring external, longitudinal, and clinical validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: