How Psychologists Keep Mental Health Technology Grounded in Research

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine Carter
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Technology

PP142 A Mental Health Hospital-based Health Technology Assessment In Quebec, Canada: Structure And Products

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 137-138
Author(s):  
Ionela Gheorghiu ◽  
Alain Lesage ◽  
Adam Mongodin ◽  
Marlène Galdin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Making Process

INTRODUCTION:Our Hospital-based Health Technology Assessment unit (HB-HTA) was founded in 2011 following the nomination of Louis-H. Lafontaine hospital as the Montreal University Mental Health Institute (IUSMM). From the beginning, the HB-HTA has been supporting and advising the Chief Executive Officer of IUSMM in the decision-making process concerning the implementation of new technologies and practices in mental health. Since 2015, the HB-HTA is part of the East of Montreal Regional Integrated Health and Social Services Centre (CIUSSS de l'Est-de-l’Île de Montréal), continuing to support decisions in mental health. Currently, the HB-HTA unit is nested in the Quality, Performance and Ethics department.METHODS:Formed by a coordinator, a scientific advisor and a manager, the HB-HTA team plans, organizes and sets up the evaluation activities. The unit benefits from the support of a Steering Committee which consists of representatives of clinical, administrative and research directions, as well as of health users and families. This committee determine the strategic orientation of the HB-HTA unit, prioritize the projects, approves the evaluation products and gives indications on the knowledge transfer process.RESULTS:To answer the decision questions, our HB-HTA unit employs two types of products: evaluation reports and informative notes. Based on an exhaustive literature search and consultations with stakeholders, the evaluation reports offer recommendations to support the decision-making process. The informative notes are rapid responses based on a partial literature search. The nature of this type of analysis does not allow the formulation of recommendations, however, a conclusion of the consulted literature is offered.CONCLUSIONS:Based on the work of our HB-HTA unit, some important decisions were made by the IUSMM. As an example, the systematic screening of psychiatric patients for drug and alcohol was not favored by our institution; rather than this, priority was given to staff training, in order to better identify and treat psychiatric patients with substance abuse comorbidity.

Mental Health Technology: An Approach to the Manpower Problem

1971 ◽  
Vol 127 (8) ◽  
pp. 1082-1085
Author(s):  
PAUL JAY FINK ◽  
HERBERT ZEROF
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Technology

scholarly journals Patient-Driven Innovation for Mobile Mental Health Technology: Case Report of Symptom Tracking in Schizophrenia

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. e27 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Torous ◽  
Spencer Roux
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Personal Experience ◽  
Patient Perspective ◽  
Technology Innovation ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Entrepreneurial Ventures ◽  
Mobile Mental Health

This patient perspective piece presents an important case at the intersection of mobile health technology, mental health, and innovation. The potential of digital technologies to advance mental health is well known, although the challenges are being increasingly recognized. Making mobile health work for mental health will require broad collaborations. We already know that those who experience mental illness are excited by the potential technology, with many actively engaged in research, fundraising, advocacy, and entrepreneurial ventures. But we don’t always hear their voice as often as others. There is a clear advantage for their voice to be heard: so we can all learn from their experiences at the direct intersection of mental health and technology innovation. The case is cowritten with an individual with schizophrenia, who openly shares his name and personal experience with mental health technology in order to educate and inspire others. This paper is the first in JMIR Mental Health’s patient perspective series, and we welcome future contributions from those with lived experience.

scholarly journals Health technology assessment and mental health

2002 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 243-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angus Mackay
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Health Intervention ◽  
Health Improvement ◽  
Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Clinical Procedures ◽  
Crude Approximation

In company with all other branches of the NHS, those concerned with mental health are currently the target of a plethora of standards, guidelines and derivatives thereof. In England and Wales, the responsibility for the production of national clinical guidelines rests with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), and the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) is charged with the monitoring of performance. In Scotland, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) and the Clinical Standards Board for Scotland (CSBS) undertake these respective responsibilities. However, NICE is also responsible for a rather different form of activity, and one that has forced it recurringly into the media limelight in the 2 years since its creation. This is the formulation of national advice on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and existing health technology. Health technology is a rather pedantic, if precisely defined, term that means essentially any health intervention and it includes medicines, devices, clinical procedures and even health care settings. Post-devolution and in the wake of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, the Health Technology Board for Scotland (HTBS) was created by statute in April 2000. This organisation shares with NICE the responsibility for issuing advice on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of health technologies, in HTBS's case primarily to NHS Scotland. Therefore, two nationally-oriented organisations exist on either side of Hadrian's Wall, responsible to their respective Parliaments for providing authoritative opinions on whether or not a particular health intervention should be provided within the NHS. A crude approximation to the subject of this advice would be ‘value for money’. While, for reasons that will be explained, such a term is potentially misleading, it does serve to identify the basic elements of the need to which this activity is a response.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document