Dataset Information

Examining the Mental Workload Associated With Digital Health Technologies in Health Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review Focusing on Assessment Methods.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The workload in health care is high; physicians and nurses report high stress levels due to a demanding environment where they often have to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. As a result, mental health issues among health care professionals (HCPs) are on the rise and the prevalence of errors in their daily tasks could increase. Processes of demographic change are partly responsible for even higher stress levels among HCPs. The digitization of patient care is intended to counteract these processes. However, it remains unclear whether these health information systems (HIS) and digital health technologies (DHT) support the HCPs and relieve stress, or if they represent a further burden. The mental construct that describes this burden of technologies is mental workload (MWL). Work in the clinic can be viewed as working in safety-critical environments. Particularly in this sensitive setting, the measurement methods of MWL are relevant, mainly due to their strongly differing levels of intrusiveness and sensitivity. The method of eye tracking could be a useful way to measure MWL directly in the field.

Objective

The systematic review aims to address the following questions: (1) In which manner do DHT contribute to the overall MWL of HCPs? (2) Can we observe a direct or indirect effect of DHT on MWL? (3) Which aspects or factors of DHT contribute to an increase in MWL? (4) Which methods/assessments are applied to measure MWL related to HIS/DHT? (5) What role does eye tracking/pupillometry play in the context of measuring MWL? (6) Which outcomes are being assessed via eye tracking?

Methods

Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) statement, we will conduct a systematic review. Based on the research questions, we define keywords that we then combine in search terms. The review follows the following steps: literature search, article selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, data analysis, and data synthesis.

Results

We expect results as well as a finalization of the review in the summer of 2021.

Conclusions

This review will evaluate the impact of DHT on the MWL of HCPs. In addition, assessment methods of MWL in the context of digital technologies will be systematically analyzed.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42021233271; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021233271.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

DERR1-10.2196/29126.

SUBMITTER: Kremer L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8371485 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs.ObjectiveThis study explored clinicians' perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework.MethodsWe used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions.ResultsThirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity.ConclusionsThe CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used by health care managers and institutions as a pragmatic tool for identifying and forestalling information quality problems that could compromise patient safety and quality of care.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057430.

Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing interest in digital technologies to help improve children and young people's mental health, and the evidence for the effectiveness for these approaches is rising. However, there is concern regarding levels of user engagement, uptake and adherence. Key guidance regarding digital health interventions stress the importance of early user input in the development, evaluation and implementation of technologies to help ensure they are engaging, feasible, acceptable and potentially effective. Co-design is a process of active involvement of stakeholders, requiring a change from the traditional approaches to intervention development. However, there is a lack of literature to inform the co-design of digital technologies to help child and adolescent mental health.MethodsWe reviewed the literature and practice in the co-design of digital mental health technologies with children and young people. We searched Medline, PsycInfo and Web of Science databases, guidelines, reviews and reference lists, contacted key authors for relevant studies, and extracted key themes on aspects of co-design relevant to practice. We supplemented this with case studies and methods reported by researchers working in the field.ResultsWe identified 25 original articles and 30 digital mental health technologies that were designed/developed with children and young people. The themes identified were as follows: principles of co-design (including potential stakeholders and stages of involvement), methods of involving and engaging the range of users, co-designing the prototype and the challenges of co-design.ConclusionsCo-design involves all relevant stakeholders throughout the life and research cycle of the programme. This review helps to inform practitioners and researchers interested in the development of digital health technologies for children and young people. Future work in this field will need to consider the changing face of technology, methods of engaging with the diversity in the user group, and the evaluation of the co-design process and its impact on the technology.

Project description:BackgroundDigital health apps are among the most visible facets of the ongoing digital transition in health care, with mental health-focused apps as one of the main therapeutic areas. However, concerns regarding their scientific robustness drove regulators to establish evaluation procedures, with Germany's Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen program pioneering in app prescription with costs covered by statutory health insurance. Portugal gathers a set of conditions and requirements that position it as an excellent test bed for digital health apps. Its daunting mental health landscape reinforces the potential interest in new interventions. To understand if they would be acceptable, we need to understand the supply side's attitudes and perceptions toward them, that is, those of psychiatrists and psychologists.ObjectiveThis study aims to understand the attitudes and expectations of psychiatrists and psychologists toward digital mental health apps (DMHAs) in the Portuguese context, as well as perceived benefits, barriers, and actions to support their adoption.MethodsWe conducted a 2-stage sequential mixed methods study. Stage 1 consisted of a cross-sectional web survey adapted to the Portuguese context that was delivered to mental health professionals and psychologists. Stage 2 complemented the insights of the web survey results with a key opinion leader analysis.ResultsA total of 160 complete survey responses were recorded, most of which were from psychologists. This is the most extensive study on mental health professionals' attitudes and perceptions of DMHAs in Portugal. A total of 87.2% (136/156) of the respondents supported the opportunity to prescribe DMHAs. Increased health literacy (139/160, 86.9%), wider adherence to treatment (137/160, 85.6%), and proper disease management (127/160, 79.4%) were the most frequently agreed upon benefits of DMHAs. However, only less than half (68/156, 43.6%) of the respondents planned to prescribe or recommend DMHAs, with psychologists being more favorable than psychiatrists. Professionals faced substantial barriers, such as a lack of information on DMHAs (154/160, 96.3%), the level of initial training effort (115/160, 71.9%), and the need for adjustments of clinical processes and records (113/160, 70.6%). Professionals reported that having more information on the available apps and their suitability for health objectives (151/160, 94.4%), more scientific evidence of the validity of the apps as a health intervention (147/160, 91.9%), and established recommendations of apps by specific clinical guidelines or professional societies (145/160, 90.6%) would be essential to foster adoption.ConclusionsMore information about DMHAs regarding their clinical validity and how they work is necessary so that such an intervention can be adopted in Portugal. Recommendations from professional and scientific societies, as well as from governmental bodies, are strongly encouraged. Although the benefits of and the barriers to using these apps are consensual, more evidence, along with further promotion of mental health professionals' digital literacy, is needed.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/41040.

Project description:IntroductionMental disorders affect 1 in 5 children having consequences for both the child and their family. Indeed, the siblings of these children are not insulated from these consequences and may experience elevated levels of psychological distress, placing them at increased risk for developing mental disorders. This protocol describes the methodology for a scoping review that will examine how mental disorders in children impact the mental health of their sibling(s). Further, we aim to examine the role of sex, gender, birth order, age of each child, and familial factors (e.g., parent mental illness, family structure), in sibling mental health. The proposed review will also identify resources that aim to support the needs of siblings of children with mental disorders. Taken together, this proposed review aims to take a fundamental step towards determining intervention targets to reduce the transmission of risk between siblings.AimThe proposed scoping review aims to address the following questions: i) how do mental disorders (in children <18 years of age) impact the mental health of their sibling(s) (also <18 years of age)? ii) Can we identify resources designed to address the needs of siblings of children with mental disorders?MethodsWe will conduct the proposed scoping review in keeping with the six-stage Arksey and O'Malley Framework and the scoping review methodology provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute. In section i) we outline our research questions. In section ii) we describe our process for identifying studies that examine the mental health of siblings of a child with a mental disorder and studies that provide evidence on resources directed specifically at these siblings. We will search peer-review and grey literature published between 2011 and 2022 from OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, CINAHL Complete, Proquest Nursing and Allied Health, PsycINFO (via APA platform), Proquest Sociology Collection and Web of Science Core Collection and Proquest Theses and Dissertations. Section iii) describes our process for selecting relevant studies. In sections iv and v, we describe our methods for charting and summarizing relevant data. Finally, in section vi) we describe our integrative knowledge translation plan that aims to include knowledge users in interpretating and translating evidence gathered from the proposed review.

Project description:IntroductionMental disorders such as depression are common, and an estimated 264 million people are affected by them throughout the world. In recent years, studies on digital health interventions to treat mental disorders have shown evidence of their efficacy, and interest in using them has increased as a result. In the primary care setting, depression and anxiety are the two most frequently diagnosed and treated mental disorders. When they do not refer them to specialists, primary care professionals such as general practitioners treat patients with mental disorders themselves but have insufficient time to treat them adequately. Furthermore, there is a shortage of psychotherapists and those that exist have long waiting lists for an appointment. The purpose of this mixed methods systematic review is to explore the attitudes of primary care professionals towards the use of digital health interventions in the treatment of patients with mental disorders. Their attitudes will provide an indication whether digital mental health interventions can effectively complement standard care in the primary care setting.Methods and analysisWe searched for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies published in English, German, Spanish, Russian, French and Dutch after January 2010 for inclusion in the review. The included studies must involve digital mental health interventions conducted via computer and/or mobile devices in the primary care setting. The search was conducted in July 2020 in the following electronic bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full texts and extract data. We will use the 'Integrated methodology' framework to combine both quantitative and qualitative data.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. We will disseminate the results of the mixed methods systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal and scientific conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020188879.