Dataset Information

Improving Implementation of eMental Health for Mood Disorders in Routine Practice: Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitating Factors.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Electronic mental health interventions (eMental health or eMH) can be used to increase accessibility of mental health services for mood disorders, with indications of comparable clinical outcomes as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, the actual use of eMH in routine mental health care lags behind expectations. Identifying the factors that might promote or inhibit implementation of eMH in routine care may help to overcome this gap between effectiveness studies and routine care. OBJECTIVE:This paper reports the results of a systematic review of the scientific literature identifying those determinants of practices relevant to implementing eMH for mood disorders in routine practice. METHODS:A broad search strategy was developed with high sensitivity to four key terms: implementation, mental health care practice, mood disorder, and eMH. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was applied to guide the review and structure the results. Thematic analysis was applied to identify the most important determinants that facilitate or hinder implementation of eMH in routine practice. RESULTS:A total of 13,147 articles were screened, of which 48 studies were included in the review. Most studies addressed aspects of the reach (n=33) of eMH, followed by intervention adoption (n=19), implementation of eMH (n=6), and maintenance (n=4) of eMH in routine care. More than half of the studies investigated the provision of mental health services through videoconferencing technologies (n=26), followed by Internet-based interventions (n=20). The majority (n=44) of the studies were of a descriptive nature. Across all RE-AIM domains, we identified 37 determinants clustered in six main themes: acceptance, appropriateness, engagement, resources, work processes, and leadership. The determinants of practices are expressed at different levels, including patients, mental health staff, organizations, and health care system level. Depending on the context, these determinants hinder or facilitate successful implementation of eMH. CONCLUSIONS:Of the 37 determinants, three were reported most frequently: (1) the acceptance of eMH concerning expectations and preferences of patients and professionals about receiving and providing eMH in routine care, (2) the appropriateness of eMH in addressing patients' mental health disorders, and (3) the availability, reliability, and interoperability with other existing technologies such as the electronic health records are important factors for mental health care professionals to remain engaged in providing eMH to their patients in routine care. On the basis of the taxonomy of determinants of practices developed in this review, implementation-enhancing interventions can be designed and applied to achieve better implementation outcomes. Suggestions for future research and implementation practice are provided.

SUBMITTER: Vis C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5878369 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving Implementation of eMental Health for Mood Disorders in Routine Practice: Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitating Factors.

Vis Christiaan C Mol Mayke M Kleiboer Annet A Bührmann Leah L Finch Tracy T Smit Jan J Riper Heleen H

JMIR mental health 20180316 1

<h4>Background</h4>Electronic mental health interventions (eMental health or eMH) can be used to increase accessibility of mental health services for mood disorders, with indications of comparable clinical outcomes as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, the actual use of eMH in routine mental health care lags behind expectations. Identifying the factors that might promote or inhibit implementation of eMH in routine care may help to overcome this gap between effectiveness studies and routine car ...[more]

PMID: 29549072

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough eMental health interventions are a viable solution to address disparities in access to mental healthcare and increase its efficiency, they still face challenges of implementation. Literature highlights numerous barriers such as diffusion of responsibility and unclear expectations of what implementation entails might hinder this process. While research mostly focuses on analyzing these barriers, there is an urgent need to increase uptake in practice. In turn, commercial companies focus mostly on increasing uptake, while overlooking research outputs. To bridge the gap between research and practice, attention to how implementation occurs in practice is required. This study investigates "Make it Happen" (MiH), the implementation model developed by the eMental Health company Minddistrict, aiming to gain more insight into operationalizing implementation frameworks by 1) describing MiH and its conceptual underpinnings, and 2) gaining lessons learned from the development of MiH. Ultimately, this work aims at improving existing scientific frameworks by extending them with knowledge from practice.MethodsFirst, individual interviews and focus groups with Minddistrict implementation managers were performed. Second, individual interviews with project leads in mental healthcare organizations that were involved in the implementation of Minddistrict were conducted. Within Minddistrict, 7 implementation managers and account managers were involved, in addition to 11 project leads from mental healthcare organizations. Data were elaborated with thematic analysis.ResultsA comprehensive description of MiH and its 5 main phases was achieved. During the 1) Onboarding phase, implementing organizations are guided by Minddistrict to build a team responsible for implementation, which then 2) designs patient and client journeys, 3) builds, tailors and configures their offer, 4) trains key-users and, 5) evaluates the success of implementation. All participants had extensive and aligned definitions and articulated expectations on implementation. Points of improvement for the model such as role ambiguity and excessive workload were identified. As strengths, internal motivation and good relationships with the provider were valued.ConclusionThe present study highlights the importance of clear role division and stakeholder engagement in implementation processes, and suggest that a strong collaboration between companies and academia could optimize implementation efforts and ensure a better fit between humans, context, and technologies.

Project description:BackgroundFamily history is a significant risk factor for bipolar disorders (BD), but the magnitude of risk varies considerably between individuals within and across families. Accurate risk estimation may increase motivation to reduce modifiable risk exposures and identify individuals appropriate for monitoring over the peak risk period. Our objective was to develop and independently replicate an individual risk calculator for bipolar spectrum disorders among the offspring of BD parents using data collected in routine clinical practice.MethodsData from the longitudinal Canadian High-Risk Offspring cohort study collected from 1996 to 2020 informed the development of a 5 and 10-year risk calculator using parametric time-to-event models with a cure fraction and a generalized gamma distribution. The calculator was then externally validated using data from the Lausanne-Geneva High-Risk Offspring cohort study collected from 1996 to 2020. A time-varying C-index by age in years was used to estimate the probability that the model correctly classified risk. Bias corrected estimates and 95% confidence limits were derived using a jackknife resampling approach.FindingsThe primary outcome was age of onset of a major mood disorder. The risk calculator was most accurate at classifying risk in mid to late adolescence in the Canadian cohort (n = 285), and a similar pattern was replicated in the Swiss cohort (n = 128). Specifically, the time-varying C-index indicated that there was approximately a 70% chance that the model would correctly predict which of two 15-year-olds would be more likely to develop the outcome in the future. External validation within a smaller Swiss cohort showed mixed results.InterpretationFindings suggest that this model may be a useful clinical tool in routine practice for improved individualized risk estimation of bipolar spectrum disorders among the adolescent offspring of a BD parent; however, risk estimation in younger high-risk offspring is less accurate, perhaps reflecting the evolving nature of psychopathology in early childhood. Based on external validation with a Swiss cohort, the risk calculator may not be as predictive in more heterogenous high-risk populations.FundingThe Canadian High-Risk Study has been funded by consecutive operating grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, currently CIHR PJT Grant 152796 he Lausanne-Geneva high-risk study was and is supported by five grants from the Swiss National Foundation (#3200-040,677, #32003B-105,969, #32003B-118,326, #3200-049,746 and #3200-061,974), three grants from the Swiss National Foundation for the National Centres of Competence in Research project "The Synaptic Bases of Mental Diseases" (#125,759, #158,776, and #51NF40 - 185,897), and a grant from GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Genetics.

Project description:BackgroundAdherence to heart failure (HF) self-care behaviours has been found to be effective for alleviating illness symptoms, increasing quality of life and reducing hospital re-admissions and mortality. However, many patients fail to implement on-going self-care into their daily lives. It is therefore crucial to improve the behaviour of HF patients to increase self-care adherence. The aim of this study is to identify relevant factors to successfully implement a complex, theory-based HF self-care intervention into routine practice.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews to obtain key stakeholders' opinions on previously developed behaviour change techniques for enhancing HF patients' self-care behaviours, in order to optimise implementation of these techniques in an intervention. The interview topic guide was developed based on the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), a tool that takes into account the feasibility of implementation and the acceptability to stakeholders. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis and supported by MAXQDA 2020, a software for qualitative research.ResultsInterview participants included 18 key stakeholders consisting of three crucial groups: clinical experts (n = 7), patients (n = 3) and high calibre policy makers/potential funders (n = 8). The interviews revealed numerous factors to consider for successful implementation of an intervention into routine practice. The findings are presented according to two major categories: (1) themes within the NPT framework and (2) themes beyond the NPT framework. Themes within the NPT component 'Coherence' include three sub-themes: 'understandability', 'value beyond existing interventions' and 'perceived benefits'. The NPT component 'Cognitive participation' revealed two sub-themes: 'time resources' and 'financial sustainability'. Finally, the NPT component 'Collective action' uncovered three sub-themes: 'need for training', 'compatibility with existing practice' and 'influence on roles'. A further two themes were identified beyond the NPT framework, namely: 'structural challenges' and (2) 'role of carers'.ConclusionsFactors identified previously by NPT were validated, but stakeholders further identified relevant aspects beyond NPT. Based on these findings, we suggest the existing NPT framework could be expanded to include a fifth component: questions considering specific environmental factors (contextual considerations). Sensitising researchers to these issues at an early stage when designing an intervention can facilitate its later success.

Project description:ImportanceA systematic assessment of existing research should justify the conduct and inform the design of new clinical research but is often lacking. There is little research on the barriers to and factors facilitating systematic evidence assessments.ObjectiveTo examine the practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders and international funders regarding conducting systematic evidence assessments in academic clinical trials.Design, setting, and participantsIn this qualitative study, individual semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted between February and August 2020 with 48 Swiss stakeholder groups (27 primary investigators, 9 funders and sponsors, 6 clinical trial support organizations, and 6 ethics committee members) and between January and March 2021 with 9 international funders of clinical trials from North America and Europe with a reputation for requiring systematic evidence synthesis in applications for academic clinical trials.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were practices and attitudes of Swiss stakeholders and international funders regarding conducting systematic evidence assessments in academic clinical trials. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis.ResultsOf the 57 participants, 40 (70.2%) were male. Participants universally acknowledged that a comprehensive understanding of the previous evidence is important but reported wide variation regarding how this should be achieved. Participants reported that the conduct of formal systematic reviews was currently not expected before most clinical trials, but most international funders reported expecting a systematic search for the existing evidence. Whereas time and resources were reported by all participants as barriers to conducting systematic reviews, the Swiss research ecosystem was reported not to be as supportive of a systematic approach compared with international settings.Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study, Swiss stakeholders and international funders generally agreed that new clinical trials should be justified by a systematic evidence assessment but that barriers on individual, organizational, and political levels kept them from implementing it. More explicit requirements from funders appear to be needed to clarify the required level of comprehensiveness in summarizing existing evidence for different types of clinical trials.

Dataset Information

Improving Implementation of eMental Health for Mood Disorders in Routine Practice: Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitating Factors.

Publications

Improving Implementation of eMental Health for Mood Disorders in Routine Practice: Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitating Factors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets