专家对实施饮食失调数字化干预措施的看法:德尔菲研究

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Diana Lemmer, Gwendolyn Mayer, Pauline Schrader, Ina Michelsen, Hans-Christoph Friederich, Stephanie Bauer
{"title":"专家对实施饮食失调数字化干预措施的看法:德尔菲研究","authors":"Diana Lemmer, Gwendolyn Mayer, Pauline Schrader, Ina Michelsen, Hans-Christoph Friederich, Stephanie Bauer","doi":"10.1186/s12889-024-19989-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Eating disorders (EDs) constitute a considerable burden for individuals and society, but adequate and timely professional treatment is rare. Evidence-based Digital Mental Health Interventions (DMHIs) have the potential both to reduce this treatment gap and to increase treatment effectiveness. However, their integration into routine care is lacking. Understanding practitioners’ attitudes towards DMHIs for EDs is crucial for their effective use. To investigate the consensus among German ED treatment experts on the relevance of different influencing factors for DMHI use in EDs. This Delphi study consisted of two rounds and was conducted online with an initial sample of N = 24 ED experts (Mage=41.96, SDage=9.92, n = 22 female). Prior to the Delphi rounds, semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were performed to explore participants’ attitudes, experiences, and expectations towards DMHIs. In order to construct the Delphi survey, content analysis was applied to a subset of ten interviews. A total of 63 influencing factors were identified and grouped into three main categories: contextual conditions, design, and content of DMHIs. In both Delphi rounds, the interview participants were subsequently invited to rate each of the factors with regard to their importance on 10-point scales. Group percentages and individual ratings of the first round (n = 23) were presented in the second round (n = 21). Consensus was calculated for each item (defined as IQR ≤ 2). Importance ratings were high across items (M = 7.88, SD = 2.07, Mdn = 8). In the first round, 48% of the items reached consensus, with its most important (Mdn = 10) factors referring to data security, evidence base, technical requirements, usability, and specific DMHI content (psychoeducation, crisis intervention). In the second Delphi round, a consensus was reached on 73% of the items. No consensus was reached on 17 items. The findings on practitioners’ attitudes and priorities have relevant implications for subsequent DMHI development, dissemination, and implementation strategies, indicating that the highest-rated factors should be highlighted in the process.","PeriodicalId":9039,"journal":{"name":"BMC Public Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experts’ views on the implementation of digital interventions for eating disorders: a Delphi study\",\"authors\":\"Diana Lemmer, Gwendolyn Mayer, Pauline Schrader, Ina Michelsen, Hans-Christoph Friederich, Stephanie Bauer\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12889-024-19989-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Eating disorders (EDs) constitute a considerable burden for individuals and society, but adequate and timely professional treatment is rare. Evidence-based Digital Mental Health Interventions (DMHIs) have the potential both to reduce this treatment gap and to increase treatment effectiveness. However, their integration into routine care is lacking. Understanding practitioners’ attitudes towards DMHIs for EDs is crucial for their effective use. To investigate the consensus among German ED treatment experts on the relevance of different influencing factors for DMHI use in EDs. This Delphi study consisted of two rounds and was conducted online with an initial sample of N = 24 ED experts (Mage=41.96, SDage=9.92, n = 22 female). Prior to the Delphi rounds, semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were performed to explore participants’ attitudes, experiences, and expectations towards DMHIs. In order to construct the Delphi survey, content analysis was applied to a subset of ten interviews. A total of 63 influencing factors were identified and grouped into three main categories: contextual conditions, design, and content of DMHIs. In both Delphi rounds, the interview participants were subsequently invited to rate each of the factors with regard to their importance on 10-point scales. Group percentages and individual ratings of the first round (n = 23) were presented in the second round (n = 21). Consensus was calculated for each item (defined as IQR ≤ 2). Importance ratings were high across items (M = 7.88, SD = 2.07, Mdn = 8). In the first round, 48% of the items reached consensus, with its most important (Mdn = 10) factors referring to data security, evidence base, technical requirements, usability, and specific DMHI content (psychoeducation, crisis intervention). In the second Delphi round, a consensus was reached on 73% of the items. No consensus was reached on 17 items. The findings on practitioners’ attitudes and priorities have relevant implications for subsequent DMHI development, dissemination, and implementation strategies, indicating that the highest-rated factors should be highlighted in the process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Public Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19989-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19989-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

饮食失调症(EDs)给个人和社会造成了巨大的负担,但充分、及时的专业治疗却很少见。以证据为基础的数字心理健康干预(DMHIs)具有缩小治疗差距和提高治疗效果的潜力。然而,将其纳入常规护理的工作还很欠缺。了解从业人员对急诊室数字心理健康干预措施的态度对其有效使用至关重要。为了调查德国急诊室治疗专家对急诊室使用 DMHI 的不同影响因素的相关性达成的共识。本德尔菲研究包括两轮,在线进行,初始样本为 N = 24 名急诊科专家(平均年龄为 41.96 岁,平均年龄为 9.92 岁,女性 22 人)。在德尔菲研究之前,还进行了半结构化定性电话访谈,以探讨参与者对 DMHIs 的态度、经验和期望。为了构建德尔菲调查,对 10 个访谈的子集进行了内容分析。共确定了 63 个影响因素,并将其分为三大类:DMHI 的背景条件、设计和内容。在这两轮德尔菲访谈中,访谈参与者随后被邀请用 10 分制对每个因素的重要性进行评分。第一轮的小组百分比和个人评分(n = 23)在第二轮(n = 21)中进行了展示。计算每个项目的共识(定义为 IQR ≤ 2)。所有项目的重要性评分都很高(M = 7.88,SD = 2.07,Mdn = 8)。在第一轮中,48% 的项目达成了共识,其中最重要的因素(Mdn = 10)涉及数据安全、证据基础、技术要求、可用性和 DMHI 的具体内容(心理教育、危机干预)。在第二轮德尔菲讨论中,73% 的项目达成了共识。有 17 个项目未达成共识。关于从业人员的态度和优先事项的研究结果对后续的 DMHI 开发、传播和实施战略具有相关影响,表明在这一过程中应强调评分最高的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Experts’ views on the implementation of digital interventions for eating disorders: a Delphi study
Eating disorders (EDs) constitute a considerable burden for individuals and society, but adequate and timely professional treatment is rare. Evidence-based Digital Mental Health Interventions (DMHIs) have the potential both to reduce this treatment gap and to increase treatment effectiveness. However, their integration into routine care is lacking. Understanding practitioners’ attitudes towards DMHIs for EDs is crucial for their effective use. To investigate the consensus among German ED treatment experts on the relevance of different influencing factors for DMHI use in EDs. This Delphi study consisted of two rounds and was conducted online with an initial sample of N = 24 ED experts (Mage=41.96, SDage=9.92, n = 22 female). Prior to the Delphi rounds, semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were performed to explore participants’ attitudes, experiences, and expectations towards DMHIs. In order to construct the Delphi survey, content analysis was applied to a subset of ten interviews. A total of 63 influencing factors were identified and grouped into three main categories: contextual conditions, design, and content of DMHIs. In both Delphi rounds, the interview participants were subsequently invited to rate each of the factors with regard to their importance on 10-point scales. Group percentages and individual ratings of the first round (n = 23) were presented in the second round (n = 21). Consensus was calculated for each item (defined as IQR ≤ 2). Importance ratings were high across items (M = 7.88, SD = 2.07, Mdn = 8). In the first round, 48% of the items reached consensus, with its most important (Mdn = 10) factors referring to data security, evidence base, technical requirements, usability, and specific DMHI content (psychoeducation, crisis intervention). In the second Delphi round, a consensus was reached on 73% of the items. No consensus was reached on 17 items. The findings on practitioners’ attitudes and priorities have relevant implications for subsequent DMHI development, dissemination, and implementation strategies, indicating that the highest-rated factors should be highlighted in the process.
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
BMC Public Health
BMC Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
2108
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Public Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the epidemiology of disease and the understanding of all aspects of public health. The journal has a special focus on the social determinants of health, the environmental, behavioral, and occupational correlates of health and disease, and the impact of health policies, practices and interventions on the community.
×
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