Process Evaluation of Digital Mental Health Interventions for Psychosis: Scoping Review With Framework Synthesis.

Abstract

Background: Implementing digital mental health interventions (DMHI) for those with psychosis is a persistent challenge. A process evaluation, or studies conducted alongside trials, is one research method that may address this issue. However, a synthesis of process evaluation data in this area is missing.

Objective: This study aimed to understand what is known about context, implementation, and mechanisms of impact by synthesizing process evaluation data from trials evaluating DMHIs used by people with psychosis.

Methods: A scoping review using a 2-phase search strategy underpinned by the Medical Research Council (MRC) process evaluation framework was conducted. Database searches of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycInfo in 2024 and 2025 first identified an index sample of peer-reviewed trials predominantly conducted in the United Kingdom (≥50% of samples from the United Kingdom in multicountry studies). Next, papers linked to the index sample were retrieved and included if they reported process evaluation data as operationalized in the MRC framework. Two authors independently screened references, extracted summary data, and assessed the quality of index trials. One author qualitatively synthesized process evaluation data using a deductive framework synthesis approach using the MRC framework. Findings were triangulated with senior authors and presented as a narrative synthesis.

Results: Searches identified 14 DMHIs and 45 papers reporting process evaluation data, though only 2 were labeled as such. Qualitative syntheses of process evaluation data generated five themes aligned with the MRC framework: (1) enhancing fit and supporting delivery (implementation strategies); (2) DMHI implementation varied across users, staff, and delivery settings (implementation outcomes); (3) helping users to respond in more helpful ways (mechanisms); (4) addressing perceived and actual implementation factors (context); and (5) limited impact of user characteristics on DMHI outcomes (context).

Conclusions: There is preliminary evidence that DMHIs can be delivered to people experiencing psychosis within trial settings, although use varied between individuals. Future implementation efforts may benefit from addressing contextual factors influencing DMHI use, including users' treatment needs and preferences, everyday demands, and staff availability for blended interventions. Future research could evaluate implementation strategies, validate how and for whom DMHIs work, and embed process evaluation in trials.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42024439117; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024439117.