Increasing the acceptance of internet-based mental health interventions in primary care patients with depressive symptoms. A randomized controlled trial

https://research.vu.nl/ws/files/104504210/Do_guided_internetbased_interventions_result_in_clinically_relevant_changes_for_patients_with_depression.pdf

Do guided internet-based interventions result in clinically relevant changes for patients with depression? An individual participant data meta-analysis.

eHealth interventions can be effective in treating health problems. However, adoption in inpatient routine care seems limited. The present study therefore aimed to investigate barriers and facilitators to acceptance of eHealth interventions and of online aftercare in particular in health professionals of inpatient treatment. A total of 152 out of 287 health professionals of various professional groups in four inpatient rehabilitation facilities filled out a self-administered web-based questionnaire (response rate: 53%); 128 individuals were eligible for further data analysis. Acceptance and possible predictors were investigated with a complex research model based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Acceptance of eHealth interventions was rather low (M = 2.47, SD = 0.98); however, acceptance of online aftercare was moderate (M = 3.08, SD = 0.96, t(127) = 8.22, p < .001), and eHealth literacy was elevated. Social influence, performance expectancy, and treatment-related internet and mo...

Ready for eHealth? Health Professionals’ Acceptance and Adoption of eHealth Interventions in Inpatient Routine Care

The field of mobile health (“m-Health”) is evolving rapidly and there is an explosive growth of psychological tools on the market. Exciting high-tech developments may identify symptoms, help individuals manage their own mental health, encourage help seeking, and provide both preventive and therapeutic interventions. This development has the potential to be an efficient cost-effective approach reducing waiting lists and serving a considerable portion of people globally (“g-Health”). However, few of the mobile applications (apps) have been rigorously evaluated. There is little information on how valid screening and assessment tools are, which of the mobile intervention apps are effective, or how well mobile apps compare to face-to-face treatments. But how feasible is rigorous scientific evaluation with the rising demands from policy makers, business partners, and users for their quick release? In this paper, developments in m-Health tools—targeting screening, assessment, prevention, and treatment—are reviewed with examples from the field of trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder. The academic challenges in developing and evaluating m-Health tools are being addressed. Evidence-based guidance is needed on appropriate research designs that may overcome some of the public and ethical challenges (e.g., equity, availability) and the market-driven wish to have mobile apps in the “App Store” yesterday rather than tomorrow. Keywords: e-Health; mobile health; m-Health; smartphone; mobile apps/applications; global health; trauma; PTSD; depression; internet intervention Responsible Editor: Marylene Cloitre, National Center for PTSD in Palo Alto, CA, USA. (Published: 19 May 2015) Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6 : 27882 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.27882 For the abstract or full text in other languages, please see Supplementary files under ‘Article Tools’ This paper is part of the Special Issue: Trauma and PTSD: setting the research agenda . More papers from this issue can be found at www.ejpt.net

Mobile mental health: a challenging research agenda.

Background
Smartphones and mobile devices have become ubiquitous, and with the rapid advance of technology, the number of health applications (apps) that are available for consumers on these devices is constantly growing In particular, there has been a recent proliferation of anxiety apps However, there has been no review of the quality or content of these anxiety apps and little is known about their purpose, the features they contain, and their empirical support The goal of this systematic review was to assess the commercially available anxiety apps

Methods
A list of anxiety apps was collected in January 2017, using the Power Search function of iTunes and Google Play Of 5,078 identified apps, 52 met our inclusion criteria (ie, being defined as an anxiety/worry relief app, and offering psychological techniques aimed primarily at reducing anxiety) and were further reviewed

Results
The majority (673%) of the currently available anxiety apps were found to lack the involvement of health care professionals in their development, and very few (38%) of them have been rigorously tested

Conclusions
At the moment, although anxiety apps have the potential to enhance access to mental health care, there is a marked discrepancy between the wealth of commercially available apps, and the paucity of data regarding their efficacy and effectiveness Although the great promise of apps is their ability to increasing access to evidence-based mental health, the field is not quite there yet and the full potential of apps for treating anxiety has yet to be exploited

Anxiety: There is an app for that. A systematic review of anxiety apps

E-mental health and m-mental health include the use of technology in the prevention, treatment and aftercare of mental health problems. With the economical pressure on mental health services increasing, e-mental health and m-mental health could bridge treatment gaps, reduce waiting times for patients and deliver interventions at lower costs. However, despite the existence of numerous effective interventions, the transition of computerised interventions into care is slow. The aim of the present study was to investigate the acceptability of e-mental health and m-mental health in the general population. An advisory group of service users identified dimensions that potentially influence an individual’s decision to engage with a particular treatment for mental health problems. A large sample (N = 490) recruited through email, flyers and social media was asked to rate the acceptability of different treatment options for mental health problems on these domains. Results were analysed using repeated measures MANOVA. Participants rated the perceived helpfulness of an intervention, the ability to motivate users, intervention credibility, and immediate access without waiting time as most important dimensions with regard to engaging with a treatment for mental health problems. Participants expected face-to-face therapy to meet their needs on most of these dimensions. Computerised treatments and smartphone applications for mental health were reported to not meet participants’ expectations on most domains. However, these interventions scored higher than face-to-face treatments on domains associated with the convenience of access. Overall, participants reported a very low likelihood of using computerised treatments for mental health in the future. Individuals in this study expressed negative views about computerised self-help intervention and low likelihood of use in the future. To improve the implementation and uptake, policy makers need to improve the public perception of such interventions.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2F1471-244X-14-109.pdf

Philip Goldstone

Papers

Understanding the acceptability of e-mental health - attitudes and expectations towards computerised self-help treatments for mental health problems