Dataset Information

A qualitative exploration of service user views about using digital health interventions for self-management in severe mental health problems.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The development of digital health interventions (DHIs) for severe mental health problems is fast-paced. Researchers are beginning to consult service users to inform DHIs; however, much of this involvement has been limited to feedback on specific interventions post-DHI development. This study had two aims: 1. explore service user views towards DHIs for severe mental health problems; and 2. make recommendations for specific content within DHIs based on service user needs and suggestions.

Methods

Qualitative interviews with eighteen people with severe mental health problems focussed on two domains: 1) views about DHIs for severe mental health problems; and 2) ideas for future DHI content and design features. Data were analysed thematically.

Results

Participants responses were captured in five key themes: 1) DHIs could be empowering tools that instigate reflection and change; 2) society is already divided; DHIs will further increase this divide; 3) considerations must be made about who has access to DHI data and how this data may be used; 4) DHIs should not be delivered without other support options; and 5) DHIs should provide a positive, fun, practical and interactive method for self-management.

Conclusions

Participants found DHIs acceptable due to the empowering nature of self-management and ability to take ownership of their own healthcare needs. However, concerns included the potential for digital exclusion, privacy and confidentiality and fears about DHIs being used to replace other mental health services. Service users want tools to help them self-manage their mental health, but also provide positive and recovery-focussed content that can be used in conjunction with other support options.

SUBMITTER: Berry N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6341527 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedical students show a relatively high prevalence for common mental disorders. Only few of those in need for treatment seek professional help. Therefore, easily accessible interventions are required. While several evidence-based internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) have been proposed, little is known about medical students' attitudes towards using them.ObjectiveWe aimed to explore the views of medical students on IMIs as well as facilitators and barriers to use them and gain first insights into their preferences for tailored IMIs.MethodsWe conducted four focus groups with 26 medical students enrolled at a German medical school in March 2020. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed following established approaches for qualitative content analysis.ResultsMedical students valued IMIs for their low-threshold and flexible access, their potential to bridge waiting times and as a first step towards face-to-face-therapy. However, medical students preferred face-to-face interventions in case of severe mental health problems. The main disadvantages named by students included difficulties to find or decide on suitable IMIs based on clear quality criteria, fear of a misdiagnosis and lack of personalisation and human interaction. Some students also questioned the effectiveness of IMIs. Easy handling, flexible use, data safety and easily understandable terms of use were believed to facilitate the uptake of IMIs, whereas technical problems, frequent notifications, required internet access, need to register, lack of anonymity, high time expenditure and costs were reported to hinder their use. Most students did not prefer IMIs tailored to medical students but rather wanted to use IMIs suitable for students of all disciplines.ConclusionOur results suggest overall positive views regarding IMIs for mental health promotion but concerns regarding their use for severe mental disorders and acute crises. Our findings indicate that IMIs may represent promising tools for stress prevention and early interventions for medical students. Students explicitly stated to prefer quality-approved IMIs recommended and provided by their university.

Project description:BackgroundAcute Day Units (ADUs) provide intensive, non-residential, short-term treatment for adults in mental health crisis. They currently exist in approximately 30% of health localities in England, but there is little research into their functioning or effectiveness, and how this form of crisis care is experienced by service users. This qualitative study explores the views and experiences of stakeholders who use and work in ADUs.MethodsWe conducted 36 semi-structured interviews with service users, staff and carers at four ADUs in England. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Peer researchers collected data and contributed to analysis, and a Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) provided perspectives across the whole project.ResultsBoth service users and staff provided generally positive accounts of using or working in ADUs. Valued features were structured programmes that provide routine, meaningful group activities, and opportunities for peer contact and emotional, practical and peer support, within an environment that felt safe. Aspects of ADU care were often described as enabling personal and social connections that contribute to shifting from crisis to recovery. ADUs were compared favourably to other forms of home- and hospital-based acute care, particularly in providing more therapeutic input and social contact. Some service users and staff thought ADU lengths of stay should be extended slightly, and staff described some ADUs being under-utilised or poorly-understood by referrers in local acute care systems.ConclusionsMulti-site qualitative data suggests that ADUs provide a distinctive and valued contribution to acute care systems, and can avoid known problems associated with other forms of acute care, such as low user satisfaction, stressful ward environments, and little therapeutic input or positive peer contact. Findings suggest there may be grounds for recommending further development and more widespread implementation of ADUs to increase choice and effective support within local acute care systems.

Project description:BackgroundWhile many digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) have been found to be efficacious, patient engagement with DMHIs has increasingly emerged as a concern for implementation in real-world clinical settings. To address engagement, we must first understand what standard engagement levels are in the context of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how these compare with other treatments.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to examine the state of reporting on intervention engagement in RCTs of mobile app-based interventions intended to treat symptoms of depression. We sought to identify what engagement metrics are and are not routinely reported as well as what the metrics that are reported reflect about standard engagement levels.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of 7 databases to identify studies meeting our eligibility criteria, namely, RCTs that evaluated use of a mobile app-based intervention in adults, for which depressive symptoms were a primary outcome of interest. We then extracted 2 kinds of information from each article: intervention details and indices of DMHI engagement. A 5-element framework of minimum necessary DMHI engagement reporting was derived by our team and guided our data extraction. This framework included (1) recommended app use as communicated to participants at enrollment and, when reported, app adherence criteria; (2) rate of intervention uptake among those assigned to the intervention; (3) level of app use metrics reported, specifically number of uses and time spent using the app; (4) duration of app use metrics (ie, weekly use patterns); and (5) number of intervention completers.ResultsDatabase searching yielded 2083 unique records. Of these, 22 studies were eligible for inclusion. Only 64% (14/22) of studies included in this review specified rate of intervention uptake. Level of use metrics was only reported in 59% (13/22) of the studies reviewed. Approximately one-quarter of the studies (5/22, 23%) reported duration of use metrics. Only half (11/22, 50%) of the studies reported the number of participants who completed the app-based components of the intervention as intended or other metrics related to completion. Findings in those studies reporting metrics related to intervention completion indicated that between 14.4% and 93.0% of participants randomized to a DMHI condition completed the intervention as intended or according to a specified adherence criteria.ConclusionsFindings suggest that engagement was underreported and widely varied. It was not uncommon to see completion rates at or below 50% (11/22) of those participants randomized to a treatment condition or to simply see completion rates not reported at all. This variability in reporting suggests a failure to establish sufficient reporting standards and limits the conclusions that can be drawn about level of engagement with DMHIs. Based on these findings, the 5-element framework applied in this review may be useful as a minimum necessary standard for DMHI engagement reporting.

Project description:BackgroundSharing patient data can help drive scientific advances and improve patient care, but service users are concerned about how their data are used. When the National Health Service proposes to scrape general practitioner records, it is very important that we understand these concerns in some depth.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate views of mental health service users on acceptable data sharing to provide clear recommendations for future data sharing systems.MethodsA total of 4 focus groups with 4 member-checking groups were conducted via the internet between October 2020 and March 2021, with a total of 22 service users in the United Kingdom. Thematic analysis was used to identify the themes.ResultsSix main themes, with several subthemes were identified, such as the purpose of data sharing-for profit, public good, and continuation of care; discrimination through the misattribution of physical symptoms to mental health conditions (ie, diagnostic overshadowing) alongside the discrimination of individuals or groups within society (ie, institutional discrimination); safeguarding data by preserving anonymity and confidentiality, strengthening security measures, and holding organizations accountable; data accuracy and informed consent-increasing transparency about data use and choice; and incorporating service user involvement in system governance to provide insight and increase security.ConclusionsThis study extends the limited research on the views and concerns of mental health service users regarding acceptable data sharing. If adopted, the recommendations should improve the confidence of service users in sharing their data. The five recommendations include screening to ensure that data sharing benefits the public, providing service users with information about how their data are shared and what for, highlighting the existing safeguarding procedures, incorporating service user involvement, and developing tailored training for health care professionals to address issues of diagnostic overshadowing and inaccurate health records. Adopting such systems would aid in data sharing for legitimate interests that will benefit patients and the National Health Service.

Project description:Introduction: The recovery approach aims to have users' perspectives at the heart of service development and research; it is a holistic perspective that considers social needs, personal growth and inclusion. In the last decade recovery-oriented research and practice has increased greatly, however, a comprehensive model of recovery considering exclusively the perspectives of people with lived experience has not been devised. Aims: This review aimed to develop a framework and contextualize service users' and informal caregivers' understanding of recovery from severe mental health problems. Methods: We systematically searched 6 databases including key terms related to knowledge, experience and narratives AND mental health AND personal recovery. The search was supplemented with reference sourcing through gray literature, reference tracking and expert consultation. Data analysis consisted of a qualitative meta-synthesis using constant comparative methods. Results: Sixty-two studies were analyzed. A pattern emerged regarding the recovery paradigms that the studies used to frame their findings. The resulting recovery framework included the domains Social recovery; Prosperity (Legal, political, and economic recovery); Individual Recovery; and Clinical Recovery Experience (SPICE). Service users' definitions of recovery tended to prioritize social aspects, particularly being accepted and connecting with others, while caregivers focused instead on clinical definitions of recovery such as symptom remission. Both groups emphasized individual aspects such as becoming self-sufficient and achieving personal goals, which was strongly linked with having economic means for independence. Conclusions: The recovery model provided by this review offers a template for further research in the field and a guide for policy and practice. Predominant definitions of recovery currently reflect understandings of mental health which focus on an individual perspective, while this review found an important emphasis on socio-political aspects. At the same time, only a small number of studies took place in low-income countries, focused on minoritized populations, or included caregivers' perspectives. These are important gaps in the literature that require further attention. Systematic Review Registration: The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017076450); https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=76450.