scholarly journals Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: a systematic review of qualitative studies

Author(s):  
Siobhan O’Connor ◽  
Peter Hanlon ◽  
Catherine A. O’Donnell ◽  
Sonia Garcia ◽  
Julie Glanville ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Golnar Aref-Adib ◽  
Tayla McCloud ◽  
Jamie Ross ◽  
Puffin O'Hanlon ◽  
Victoria Appleton ◽  
...  

10.2196/16228 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. e16228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shireen Patel ◽  
Athfah Akhtar ◽  
Sam Malins ◽  
Nicola Wright ◽  
Emma Rowley ◽  
...  

Background The prevalence of mental health disorders continues to rise, with almost 4% of the world population having an anxiety disorder and almost 3.5% having depression in 2017. Despite the high prevalence, only one-third of people with depression or anxiety receive treatment. Over the last decade, the use of digital health interventions (DHIs) has risen rapidly as a means of accessing mental health care and continues to increase. Although there is evidence supporting the effectiveness of DHIs for the treatment of mental health conditions, little is known about what aspects are valued by users and how they might be improved. Objective This systematic review aimed to identify, appraise, and synthesize the qualitative literature available on service users’ views and experiences regarding the acceptability and usability of DHIs for depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorders. Methods A systematic search strategy was developed, and searches were run in 7 electronic databases. Qualitative and mixed methods studies published in English were included. A meta-synthesis was used to interpret and synthesize the findings from the included studies. Results A total of 24 studies were included in the meta-synthesis, and 3 key themes emerged with descriptive subthemes. The 3 key themes were initial motivations and approaches to DHIs, personalization of treatment, and the value of receiving personal support in DHIs. The meta-synthesis suggests that participants’ initial beliefs about DHIs can have an important effect on their engagement with these types of interventions. Personal support was valued very highly as a major component of the success of DHIs. The main reason for this was the way it enabled individual personalization of care. Conclusions Findings from the systematic review have implications for the design of future DHIs to improve uptake, retention, and outcomes in DHIs for depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorders. DHIs need to be personalized to the specific needs of the individual. Future research should explore whether the findings could be generalized to other health conditions.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Bevens

BACKGROUND Digital health interventions (DHI) have revolutionised the management of multiple sclerosis (MS). It is now understood that the technological elements that comprise DHIs can influence participant engagement and that people with MS (PwMS) can experience significant barriers to remaining enrolled in DHIs related to the use of these elements. It is essential to explore the influence of technological elements in mitigating attrition after allocation. OBJECTIVE We examined the study design and technological elements of documented DHIs targeted at PwMS and how these correlated with attrition among participants of randomised-controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs (n=17) describing digital technologies for health interventions for PwMS. We analysed attrition of included studies using a random-effects model and meta-regression to measure the association between potential moderators. RESULTS There were no measured differences in attrition between intervention and control arms; however, some of the heterogeneity observed was explained by the composite technological element score. The pooled attrition rates for the intervention and control arms were 10.6% and 11.2% respectively. CONCLUSIONS Ultimately, this paper provides insight into the technological composition of DHIs and will aid in the design of future studies in this area.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
F D'Aloisio ◽  
D Pezzato ◽  
G Gervasi ◽  
A Ubiali ◽  
NL Bragazzi ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Domhardt ◽  
Sophie Engler ◽  
Hannah Nowak ◽  
Arne Lutsch ◽  
Amit Baumel ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Digital health interventions (DHIs) are efficacious for several mental disorders in youth; however, integrated, evidence-based knowledge about the mechanisms of change in these interventions is lacking. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims to comprehensively evaluate studies on mediators and mechanisms of change in different DHIs for common mental disorders in children and adolescents. METHODS A systematic literature search of the electronic databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO was conducted, complemented by backward and forward searches. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion, extracted the data, and rated the methodological quality of eligible studies (ie, risk of bias and 8 quality criteria for process research). RESULTS A total of 25 studies that have evaluated 39 potential mediators were included in this review. Cognitive mediators were the largest group of examined intervening variables, followed by a broad range of emotional and affective, interpersonal, parenting behavior, and other mediators. The mediator categories with the highest percentages of significant intervening variables were the groups of affective mediators (4/4, 100%) and combined cognitive mediators (13/19, 68%). Although more than three-quarters of the eligible studies met 5 or more quality criteria, causal conclusions have been widely precluded. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this review might guide the empirically informed advancement of DHIs, contributing to improved intervention outcomes, and the discussion of methodological recommendations for process research might facilitate mediation studies with more pertinent designs, allowing for conclusions with higher causal certainty in the future.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (37) ◽  
pp. 1-248
Author(s):  
Fiona Lobban ◽  
Duncan Appelbe ◽  
Victoria Appleton ◽  
Golnar Aref-Adib ◽  
Johanna Barraclough ◽  
...  

Background Digital health interventions have the potential to improve the delivery of psychoeducation to people with mental health problems and their relatives. Despite substantial investment in the development of digital health interventions, successful implementation into routine clinical practice is rare. Objectives Use the implementation of the Relatives’ Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) for psychosis/bipolar disorder to identify critical factors affecting uptake and use, and develop an implementation plan to support the delivery of REACT. Design This was an implementation study using a mixed-methods, theory-driven, multiple case study approach. A study-specific implementation theory for REACT based on normalisation process theory was developed and tested, and iterations of an implementation plan to address the key factors affecting implementation were developed. Setting Early-intervention teams in six NHS mental health trusts in England (three in the north and three in the south). Participants In total, 281 staff accounts and 159 relatives’ accounts were created, 129 staff and 23 relatives took part in qualitative interviews about their experiences, and 132 relatives provided demographic data, 56 provided baseline data, 21 provided data at 12 weeks’ follow-up and 20 provided data at 24 weeks’ follow-up. Interventions REACT is an online supported self-management toolkit, offering 12 evidence-based psychoeducation modules and support via a forum, and a confidential direct messaging service for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. The implementation intervention was developed with staff and iteratively adapted to address identified barriers. Adaptations included modifications to the toolkit and how it was delivered by teams. Main outcome measures The main outcome was factors affecting implementation of REACT, assessed primarily through in-depth interviews with staff and relatives. We also assessed quantitative measures of delivery (staff accounts and relatives’ invitations), use of REACT (relatives’ logins and time spent on the website) and the impact of REACT [relatives’ distress (General Health Questionnaire-28), and carer well-being and support (Carer Well-being and Support Scale questionnaire)]. Results Staff and relatives were generally positive about the content of REACT, seeing it as a valuable resource that could help services improve support and meet clinical targets, but only within a comprehensive service that included face-to-face support, and with some additional content. Barriers to implementation included high staff caseloads and difficulties with prioritising supporting relatives; technical difficulties of using REACT; poor interoperability with trust information technology systems and care pathways; lack of access to mobile technology and information technology training; restricted forum populations leading to low levels of use; staff fears of managing risk, online trolling, or replacement by technology; and uncertainty around REACT’s long-term availability. There was no evidence that REACT would reduce staff time supporting relatives (which was already very low), and might increase it by facilitating communication. In all, 281 staff accounts were created, but only 57 staff sent relatives invitations. In total, 355 relatives’ invitations were sent to 310 unique relatives, leading to the creation of 159 relatives’ accounts. The mean number of logins for relatives was 3.78 (standard deviation 4.43), but with wide variation from 0 to 31 (median 2, interquartile range 1–8). The mean total time spent on the website was 40.6 minutes (standard deviation 54.54 minutes), with a range of 0–298 minutes (median 20.1 minutes, interquartile range 4.9–57.5 minutes). There was a pattern of declining mean scores for distress, social dysfunction, depression, anxiety and insomnia, and increases in relatives’ well-being and eHealth literacy, but no changes were statistically significant. Conclusions Digital health interventions, such as REACT, should be iteratively developed, evaluated, adapted and implemented, with staff and service user input, as part of a long-term strategy to develop integrated technology-enabled services. Implementation strategies must instil a sense of ownership for staff and ensure that they have adequate training, risk protocols and resources to deliver the technology. Cost-effectiveness and impact on workload and inequalities in accessing health care need further testing, along with the generalisability of our findings to other digital health interventions. Limitations REACT was offered by the same team running the IMPlementation of A Relatives’ Toolkit (IMPART) study, and was perceived by staff and relatives as a time-limited research study rather than ongoing clinical service, which affected engagement. Access to observational data was limited. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16267685. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document