Dataset Information

Digital health interventions for healthy ageing: a qualitative user evaluation and ethical assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Digital health technologies are being increasingly developed with the aim of allowing older adults to maintain functional independence throughout the old age, a process known as healthy ageing. Such digital health technologies for healthy ageing are expected to mitigate the socio-economic effects of population ageing and improve the quality of life of older people. However, little is known regarding the views and needs of older people regarding these technologies.

Aim

The aim of this study was to explore the views, needs and perceptions of community-dwelling older adults regarding the use of digital health technologies for healthy ageing.

Method

Face-to-face, in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with community-dwelling older adults (median age 79.6 years). The interview process involved both abstract reflections and practical demonstrations. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed according to inductive content analysis.

Results

Three main themes and twelve sub-themes addressing our study aim resulted from the data obtained. The main themes revolved around favorable views and perceptions on technology-assisted living, usability evaluations and ethical considerations.

Conclusions

Our study reveals a generally positive attitude towards digital health technologies as participants believed digital tools could positively contribute to improving their overall wellbeing, especially if designed in a patient-centered manner. Safety concerns and ethical issues related to privacy, empowerment and lack of human contact were also addressed by participants as key considerations.

SUBMITTER: Ienca M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8252216 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundTeletherapy apps have emerged as a promising alternative to traditional in-person therapy, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, as they help overcome a range of geographical and emotional barriers to accessing care. However, the rapid proliferation of teletherapy apps has occurred in an environment in which development has outpaced the various regulatory and ethical considerations of this space. Thus, researchers have raised concerns about the ethical implications and potential risks of teletherapy apps given the lack of regulation and oversight. Teletherapy apps have distinct aims to more directly replicate practices of traditional care, as opposed to mental health apps, which primarily provide supplemental support, suggesting a need to examine the ethical considerations of teletherapy apps from the lens of existing ethical guidelines for providing therapy.ObjectiveIn this study, we examined user reviews of commercial teletherapy apps to understand user perceptions of whether and how ethical principles are followed and incorporated.MethodsWe identified 8 mobile apps that (1) provided teletherapy on 2 dominant mobile app stores (Google Play and Apple App Store) and (2) had received >5000 app reviews on both app stores. We wrote Python scripts (Python Software Foundation) to scrape user reviews from the 8 apps, collecting 3268 user reviews combined across 2 app stores. We used thematic analysis to qualitatively analyze user reviews, developing a codebook drawing from the ethical codes of conduct for psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers.ResultsThe qualitative analysis of user reviews revealed the ethical concerns and opportunities of teletherapy app users. Users frequently perceived unprofessionalism in their teletherapists, mentioning that their therapists did not listen to them, were distracted during therapy sessions, and did not keep their appointments. Users also noted technical glitches and therapist unavailability on teletherapy apps that might affect their ability to provide continuity of care. Users held varied opinions on the affordability of those apps, with some perceiving them as affordable and others not. Users further brought up that the subscription model resulted in unfair pricing and expressed concerns about the lack of cost transparency. Users perceived that these apps could help promote access to care by overcoming geographical and social constraints.ConclusionsOur study suggests that users perceive commercial teletherapy apps as adhering to many ethical principles pertaining to therapy but falling short in key areas regarding professionalism, continuity of care, cost fairness, and cost transparency. Our findings suggest that, to provide high-quality care, teletherapy apps should prioritize fair compensation for therapists, develop more flexible and transparent payment models, and invest in measures to ensure app stability and therapist availability. Future work is needed to develop standards for teletherapy and improve the quality and accessibility of those services.

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.