精神病或双相情感障碍患者参与数字心理健康干预的障碍和促进因素:系统回顾和最适合框架综合

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Jmir Mental Health Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI:10.2196/65246
Emily Eisner, Sophie Faulkner, Stephanie Allan, Hannah Ball, Daniela Di Basilio, Jennifer Nicholas, Aansha Priyam, Paul Wilson, Xiaolong Zhang, Sandra Bucci
{"title":"精神病或双相情感障碍患者参与数字心理健康干预的障碍和促进因素:系统回顾和最适合框架综合","authors":"Emily Eisner, Sophie Faulkner, Stephanie Allan, Hannah Ball, Daniela Di Basilio, Jennifer Nicholas, Aansha Priyam, Paul Wilson, Xiaolong Zhang, Sandra Bucci","doi":"10.2196/65246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) to monitor and improve the health of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder show promise; however, user engagement is variable, and integrated clinical use is low.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This prospectively registered systematic review examined barriers and facilitators of clinician and patient engagement with DMHIs, to inform implementation within real-world settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of 7 databases identified empirical studies reporting qualitative or quantitative data about factors affecting staff or patient engagement with DMHIs aiming to monitor or improve the mental or physical health of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to synthesize data on barriers and facilitators, following a best-fit framework synthesis approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 175 papers (150 studies; 11,446 participants) describing randomized controlled trials; surveys; qualitative interviews; and usability, cohort, and case studies. Samples included people with schizophrenia spectrum psychosis (98/150, 65.3% of studies), bipolar disorder (62/150, 41.3% of studies), and clinicians (26/150, 17.3% of studies). Key facilitators were a strong recognition of DMHIs' relative advantages, a clear link between intervention focus and specific patient needs, a simple, low-effort digital interface, human-supported delivery, and device provision where needed. Although staff thought patients would lose, damage, or sell devices, reviewed studies found only 11% device loss. Barriers included intervention complexity, perceived risks, user motivation, discomfort with self-reflection, digital poverty, symptoms of psychosis, poor compatibility with existing clinical workflows, staff and patient fears that DMHIs would replace traditional face-to-face care, infrastructure limitations, and limited financial support for delivery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Identified barriers and facilitators highlight key considerations for DMHI development and implementation. As to broader implications, sustainable business models are needed to ensure that evidence-based DMHIs are maintained and deployed.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42021282871; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282871.</p>","PeriodicalId":48616,"journal":{"name":"Jmir Mental Health","volume":"12 ","pages":"e65246"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barriers and Facilitators of User Engagement With Digital Mental Health Interventions for People With Psychosis or Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review and Best-Fit Framework Synthesis.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Eisner, Sophie Faulkner, Stephanie Allan, Hannah Ball, Daniela Di Basilio, Jennifer Nicholas, Aansha Priyam, Paul Wilson, Xiaolong Zhang, Sandra Bucci\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/65246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) to monitor and improve the health of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder show promise; however, user engagement is variable, and integrated clinical use is low.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This prospectively registered systematic review examined barriers and facilitators of clinician and patient engagement with DMHIs, to inform implementation within real-world settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of 7 databases identified empirical studies reporting qualitative or quantitative data about factors affecting staff or patient engagement with DMHIs aiming to monitor or improve the mental or physical health of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to synthesize data on barriers and facilitators, following a best-fit framework synthesis approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 175 papers (150 studies; 11,446 participants) describing randomized controlled trials; surveys; qualitative interviews; and usability, cohort, and case studies. Samples included people with schizophrenia spectrum psychosis (98/150, 65.3% of studies), bipolar disorder (62/150, 41.3% of studies), and clinicians (26/150, 17.3% of studies). Key facilitators were a strong recognition of DMHIs' relative advantages, a clear link between intervention focus and specific patient needs, a simple, low-effort digital interface, human-supported delivery, and device provision where needed. Although staff thought patients would lose, damage, or sell devices, reviewed studies found only 11% device loss. Barriers included intervention complexity, perceived risks, user motivation, discomfort with self-reflection, digital poverty, symptoms of psychosis, poor compatibility with existing clinical workflows, staff and patient fears that DMHIs would replace traditional face-to-face care, infrastructure limitations, and limited financial support for delivery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Identified barriers and facilitators highlight key considerations for DMHI development and implementation. As to broader implications, sustainable business models are needed to ensure that evidence-based DMHIs are maintained and deployed.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42021282871; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282871.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jmir Mental Health\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"e65246\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jmir Mental Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/65246\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jmir Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/65246","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:数字心理健康干预(DMHIs)监测和改善精神病或双相情感障碍患者的健康显示出希望;然而,用户参与度是可变的,综合临床使用率很低。目的:这一前瞻性注册的系统评价检查了临床医生和患者参与DMHIs的障碍和促进因素,以告知在现实世界环境中的实施。方法:对7个数据库进行系统检索,确定了报告定性或定量数据的实证研究,这些数据涉及影响工作人员或患者参与DMHIs的因素,旨在监测或改善精神病或双相情感障碍患者的精神或身体健康。按照最合适的框架综合方法,使用《实施研究综合框架》综合有关障碍和促进因素的数据。结果:纳入175篇论文(150项研究;11446名受试者)描述随机对照试验;调查;定性访谈;可用性,群体和案例研究。样本包括精神分裂症谱系精神病患者(98/150,65.3%的研究)、双相情感障碍患者(62/150,41.3%的研究)和临床医生(26/150,17.3%的研究)。关键的促进因素是对DMHIs相对优势的强烈认识,干预重点与特定患者需求之间的明确联系,简单,低成本的数字界面,人工支持的交付以及需要时提供的设备。尽管工作人员认为患者会丢失、损坏或出售设备,但经过审查的研究发现,只有11%的设备丢失。障碍包括干预措施的复杂性、感知风险、用户动机、自我反思的不适、数字贫困、精神病症状、与现有临床工作流程的兼容性差、工作人员和患者担心DMHIs将取代传统的面对面护理、基础设施限制以及提供的财政支持有限。结论:已确定的障碍和促进因素突出了DMHI开发和实施的关键考虑因素。至于更广泛的影响,需要可持续的商业模式来确保维护和部署基于证据的DMHIs。试验注册:PROSPERO CRD42021282871;https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282871。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Barriers and Facilitators of User Engagement With Digital Mental Health Interventions for People With Psychosis or Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review and Best-Fit Framework Synthesis.

Background: Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) to monitor and improve the health of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder show promise; however, user engagement is variable, and integrated clinical use is low.

Objective: This prospectively registered systematic review examined barriers and facilitators of clinician and patient engagement with DMHIs, to inform implementation within real-world settings.

Methods: A systematic search of 7 databases identified empirical studies reporting qualitative or quantitative data about factors affecting staff or patient engagement with DMHIs aiming to monitor or improve the mental or physical health of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to synthesize data on barriers and facilitators, following a best-fit framework synthesis approach.

Results: The review included 175 papers (150 studies; 11,446 participants) describing randomized controlled trials; surveys; qualitative interviews; and usability, cohort, and case studies. Samples included people with schizophrenia spectrum psychosis (98/150, 65.3% of studies), bipolar disorder (62/150, 41.3% of studies), and clinicians (26/150, 17.3% of studies). Key facilitators were a strong recognition of DMHIs' relative advantages, a clear link between intervention focus and specific patient needs, a simple, low-effort digital interface, human-supported delivery, and device provision where needed. Although staff thought patients would lose, damage, or sell devices, reviewed studies found only 11% device loss. Barriers included intervention complexity, perceived risks, user motivation, discomfort with self-reflection, digital poverty, symptoms of psychosis, poor compatibility with existing clinical workflows, staff and patient fears that DMHIs would replace traditional face-to-face care, infrastructure limitations, and limited financial support for delivery.

Conclusions: Identified barriers and facilitators highlight key considerations for DMHI development and implementation. As to broader implications, sustainable business models are needed to ensure that evidence-based DMHIs are maintained and deployed.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42021282871; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282871.

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
Jmir Mental Health
Jmir Mental Health Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
3.80%
发文量
104
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR Mental Health (JMH, ISSN 2368-7959) is a PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed sister journal of JMIR, the leading eHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175). JMIR Mental Health focusses on digital health and Internet interventions, technologies and electronic innovations (software and hardware) for mental health, addictions, online counselling and behaviour change. This includes formative evaluation and system descriptions, theoretical papers, review papers, viewpoint/vision papers, and rigorous evaluations.
×
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