Dataset Information

Opportunities and Challenges for Digital Social Prescribing in Mental Health: Questionnaire Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The concept of digital social prescription usually refers to social prescriptions that are facilitated by using technology. Tools that enable such digital social prescriptions may be beneficial in recommending nonmedical activities to people with mental illness. As these tools are still somewhat novel and emerging, little is known about their potential advantages and disadvantages.

Objective

The objective of this study is to identify the potential opportunities and challenges that may arise from digital social prescriptions.

Methods

We developed a qualitative questionnaire that was disseminated through social media (Facebook and Twitter). A purposive sample targeting digital mental health experts and nonexperts was approached. The questionnaire asked participants' views about digital social prescription; the core elements linked with a definition of digital social prescription; and the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with digital social prescription.

Results

Four core elements were recommended to define the concept of digital social prescription: digital, facilitate, user, and social. The main strength identified was the possibility to rapidly start using digital social prescription tools, which were perceived as cost-effective. The main weaknesses were their poor adherence and difficulties with using such tools. The main opportunities were an increased access to social prescription services and the prevention of serious mental illness. The main threats were certain groups being disadvantaged, patients being subject to unintended negative consequences, and issues relating to confidentiality and data protection.

Conclusions

Although digital social prescriptions may be able to effectively augment the social prescriptions, a careful consideration of practical challenges and data ethics is imperative in the design and implementation of such technologies.

SUBMITTER: Patel S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7988390 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing evidence for the use of social prescribing as a means to improve the mental health of patients. However, there are gaps in understanding the barriers and enablers faced by General Practitioners (GPs) when engaging in social prescribing for patients with mental health problems.MethodsThis study uses a qualitative approach involving one-to-one interviews with GPs from across the UK. The COM-B model was used to elucidate barriers and enablers, and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and a Behaviour Change Theory and Techniques tool was used to identify interventions that could address these.ResultsGPs recognised the utility of social prescribing in addressing the high levels of psychosocial need they saw in their patient population, and expressed the need to de-medicalise certain patient problems. GPs were driven by a desire to help patients, and so they benefited from regular positive feedback to reinforce the value of their social prescribing referrals. They also discussed the importance of developing more robust evidence on social prescribing, but acknowledged the challenges of conducting rigorous research in community settings. GPs lacked the capacity, and formal training, to effectively engage with community groups for patients with mental health problems. Link workers, when available to GPs, were of fundamental importance in bridging the gap between the GP and community. The formation of trusting relationships was crucial at different points of the social prescribing pathway, with patients needing to trust GPs in order for them to agree to see a link worker or attend a community activity, and GPs requiring a range of strong inter-personal skills in order to gain patients' trust and motivate them.ConclusionThis study elucidates the barriers and enablers to social prescribing for patients with mental health problems, from the perspectives of GPs. Recommended interventions include a more systematic feedback structure for GPs and more formal training around social prescribing and developing the relevant inter-personal skills. This study provides insight for GPs and other practice staff, commissioners, managers, providers and community groups, to help design and deliver future social prescribing services.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include the possibility for service users to consent in advance to compulsory care in future mental health crises. Legal provisions for SBDs exist in the Netherlands since 2008 and were updated in 2020. While ethicists and legal scholars have identified several benefits and risks of SBDs, few data on stakeholder perspectives on SBDs are available.AimsThe aim of the study was to identify opportunities and challenges of SBDs perceived by stakeholders who have personal or professional experience with legally enforceable SBDs.MethodsData collection was carried out in the Netherlands from February 2020 to October 2021 by means of semi-structured interviews. Participants were selected through purposive sampling and snowball methods. Interviews were conducted with mental health service users (n = 7), professionals (n = 13), and an expert on SBD policy (n = 1), resulting in a total number of 21 interviews. The data were analyzed thematically.ResultsPerceived benefits of SBDs included increased autonomy, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, possibility of early intervention and prevention of harm, prevention of compulsory care, reduction of the duration of compulsory care and recovery, mitigation of negative experiences around compulsory care, and guidance for professionals in providing compulsory care. Perceived risks included infeasibility of SBD instructions, difficulty in decision-making around SBD activation, limited accessibility of SBDs, disappointment of service users due to non-compliance with SBDs, and limited evaluation and updating of SBD content. Barriers to SBD completion included lack of knowledge of SBDs among professionals, lack of motivation or insight among service users, and lack of professional support for SBD completion. Facilitators of SBD completion and activation included support for SBD completion, involvement of relatives and peer experts, specification of SBD content, and evaluation of compulsory care and SBD content. The new legal framework was regarded as having both positive and negative effects on SBD implementation.ConclusionsStakeholders who have personal or professional experience with legally enforceable SBDs perceive SBDs as having important benefits and tend not to articulate the fundamental ethical concerns about SBDs which can be found in the ethics and legal literature. Instead, they perceive ethical and practical challenges that can be addressed through the implementation of suitable safeguards.