调查数字精神卫生干预措施使用障碍的方法学方法:范围审查

IF 1.4 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Aarthi Ganapathy, Leanne M. Casey, Dale P. Rowland, Araluen Brinawa Grady, Kylie Veale Sotheren, Bonnie A. Clough
{"title":"调查数字精神卫生干预措施使用障碍的方法学方法:范围审查","authors":"Aarthi Ganapathy, Leanne M. Casey, Dale P. Rowland, Araluen Brinawa Grady, Kylie Veale Sotheren, Bonnie A. Clough","doi":"10.1080/18387357.2023.2254864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective Given the potential benefits of digital mental health (DMH) interventions, especially post-COVID-19, ample research focuses on factors that prevent mental health professionals (MHPs) and consumer engagement with DMH technologies. However, questions about the robustness of research designs employed to study DMH barriers remain unanswered. This review aimed to identify methodological approaches to identifying barriers to DMH use.Method Using PRISMA-SCr guided scoping review methodology, the research methods and designs used to study barriers to DMH use among MHPs and consumers were investigated. Four databases were searched using broad terms to identify articles that focused on exploring barriers to DMH use by MHPs and consumers, covering screening, assessment, diagnosis, therapy, counselling, and treatment of mental health issues.Results One hundred and forty-seven papers met the inclusion criteria. Ninety-six studies were qualitative, 25 were quantitative, and 25 were mixed methods. There were 66 consumer studies, 62 MHP studies, and 19 studies included both. Hundred and eight studies were published between 2017 and 2021, focusing on developed nations such as the USA, Australia, and the United Kingdom.Discussion There is increasing interest in the barriers to DMH use, with more research employing qualitative designs to identify DMH use barriers. Consensus regarding key terms and definitions; reliable and valid tools to measure DMH use barriers; and increased efforts to test specific DMH tools in more than one setting are needed to enable a better understanding of factors that influence MHPs’ and consumers’ use of DMH.","PeriodicalId":51720,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Mental Health","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological approaches in investigating barriers to digital mental health interventions use: a scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Aarthi Ganapathy, Leanne M. Casey, Dale P. Rowland, Araluen Brinawa Grady, Kylie Veale Sotheren, Bonnie A. Clough\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/18387357.2023.2254864\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective Given the potential benefits of digital mental health (DMH) interventions, especially post-COVID-19, ample research focuses on factors that prevent mental health professionals (MHPs) and consumer engagement with DMH technologies. However, questions about the robustness of research designs employed to study DMH barriers remain unanswered. This review aimed to identify methodological approaches to identifying barriers to DMH use.Method Using PRISMA-SCr guided scoping review methodology, the research methods and designs used to study barriers to DMH use among MHPs and consumers were investigated. Four databases were searched using broad terms to identify articles that focused on exploring barriers to DMH use by MHPs and consumers, covering screening, assessment, diagnosis, therapy, counselling, and treatment of mental health issues.Results One hundred and forty-seven papers met the inclusion criteria. Ninety-six studies were qualitative, 25 were quantitative, and 25 were mixed methods. There were 66 consumer studies, 62 MHP studies, and 19 studies included both. Hundred and eight studies were published between 2017 and 2021, focusing on developed nations such as the USA, Australia, and the United Kingdom.Discussion There is increasing interest in the barriers to DMH use, with more research employing qualitative designs to identify DMH use barriers. Consensus regarding key terms and definitions; reliable and valid tools to measure DMH use barriers; and increased efforts to test specific DMH tools in more than one setting are needed to enable a better understanding of factors that influence MHPs’ and consumers’ use of DMH.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Mental Health\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Mental Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2023.2254864\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2023.2254864","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于数字心理健康(DMH)干预措施的潜在好处,特别是在2019冠状病毒病(covid -19)后,大量研究集中在阻碍心理健康专业人员(MHPs)和消费者参与DMH技术的因素上。然而,关于用于研究DMH屏障的研究设计的稳健性的问题仍然没有答案。本综述旨在确定识别DMH使用障碍的方法学方法。方法采用PRISMA-SCr引导的范围审查方法,研究MHPs和消费者使用DMH的障碍的研究方法和设计。使用广义术语搜索四个数据库,以确定侧重于探索MHPs和消费者使用DMH的障碍的文章,涵盖筛查,评估,诊断,治疗,咨询和心理健康问题的治疗。结果147篇论文符合纳入标准。96项研究为定性研究,25项为定量研究,25项为混合研究。有66项消费者研究,62项MHP研究,19项研究两者都包括。2017年至2021年间发表了108项研究,主要集中在美国、澳大利亚和英国等发达国家。人们对DMH使用障碍的兴趣越来越大,越来越多的研究采用定性设计来确定DMH使用障碍。就关键术语和定义达成共识;测量DMH使用障碍的可靠和有效的工具;需要加大力度,在多个环境中测试特定的DMH工具,以便更好地了解影响MHPs和消费者使用DMH的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodological approaches in investigating barriers to digital mental health interventions use: a scoping review
Objective Given the potential benefits of digital mental health (DMH) interventions, especially post-COVID-19, ample research focuses on factors that prevent mental health professionals (MHPs) and consumer engagement with DMH technologies. However, questions about the robustness of research designs employed to study DMH barriers remain unanswered. This review aimed to identify methodological approaches to identifying barriers to DMH use.Method Using PRISMA-SCr guided scoping review methodology, the research methods and designs used to study barriers to DMH use among MHPs and consumers were investigated. Four databases were searched using broad terms to identify articles that focused on exploring barriers to DMH use by MHPs and consumers, covering screening, assessment, diagnosis, therapy, counselling, and treatment of mental health issues.Results One hundred and forty-seven papers met the inclusion criteria. Ninety-six studies were qualitative, 25 were quantitative, and 25 were mixed methods. There were 66 consumer studies, 62 MHP studies, and 19 studies included both. Hundred and eight studies were published between 2017 and 2021, focusing on developed nations such as the USA, Australia, and the United Kingdom.Discussion There is increasing interest in the barriers to DMH use, with more research employing qualitative designs to identify DMH use barriers. Consensus regarding key terms and definitions; reliable and valid tools to measure DMH use barriers; and increased efforts to test specific DMH tools in more than one setting are needed to enable a better understanding of factors that influence MHPs’ and consumers’ use of DMH.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信