Cargando…

Stakeholder perspectives on evidence for digital mental health interventions: Implications for accreditation systems

BACKGROUND: Digital mental health interventions can be effective for treating mental health problems, but uptake by consumers and clinicians is not optimal. The lack of an accreditation pathway for digital mental health interventions is a barrier to their uptake among clinicians and consumers. Howev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Batterham, Philip J, Calear, Alison L, O’Dea, Bridianne, Larsen, Mark E, J Kavanagh, David, Titov, Nickolai, March, Sonja, Hickie, Ian, Teesson, Maree, Dear, Blake F, Reynolds, Julia, Lowinger, Jocelyn, Thornton, Louise, Gorman, Patrick
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6755623/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31565238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2055207619878069
_version_ 1783453273044287488
author Batterham, Philip J
Calear, Alison L
O’Dea, Bridianne
Larsen, Mark E
J Kavanagh, David
Titov, Nickolai
March, Sonja
Hickie, Ian
Teesson, Maree
Dear, Blake F
Reynolds, Julia
Lowinger, Jocelyn
Thornton, Louise
Gorman, Patrick
author_facet Batterham, Philip J
Calear, Alison L
O’Dea, Bridianne
Larsen, Mark E
J Kavanagh, David
Titov, Nickolai
March, Sonja
Hickie, Ian
Teesson, Maree
Dear, Blake F
Reynolds, Julia
Lowinger, Jocelyn
Thornton, Louise
Gorman, Patrick
author_sort Batterham, Philip J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Digital mental health interventions can be effective for treating mental health problems, but uptake by consumers and clinicians is not optimal. The lack of an accreditation pathway for digital mental health interventions is a barrier to their uptake among clinicians and consumers. However, there are a number of factors that may contribute to whether a digital intervention is suitable for recommendation to the public. The aim of this study was to identify the types of evidence that would support the accreditation of digital interventions. METHOD: An expert workshop was convened, including researcher, clinician, consumer (people with lived experience of a mental health condition) and policymaker representatives. RESULTS: Existing methods for assessing the evidence for digital mental health interventions were discussed by the stakeholders present at the workshop. Empirical evidence from randomised controlled trials was identified as a key component for evaluating digital interventions. However, information on the safety of users, data security, user ratings, and fidelity to clinical guidelines, along with data from routine care including adherence, engagement and clinical outcomes, were also identified as important considerations when evaluating an intervention. There are considerable challenges in weighing the evidence for a digital mental health intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical evidence should be the cornerstone of any accreditation system to identify appropriate digital mental health interventions. However, robust accreditation systems should also account for program and user safety, user engagement and experience, and fidelity to clinical treatment guidelines.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6755623
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67556232019-09-27 Stakeholder perspectives on evidence for digital mental health interventions: Implications for accreditation systems Batterham, Philip J Calear, Alison L O’Dea, Bridianne Larsen, Mark E J Kavanagh, David Titov, Nickolai March, Sonja Hickie, Ian Teesson, Maree Dear, Blake F Reynolds, Julia Lowinger, Jocelyn Thornton, Louise Gorman, Patrick Digit Health Original Research BACKGROUND: Digital mental health interventions can be effective for treating mental health problems, but uptake by consumers and clinicians is not optimal. The lack of an accreditation pathway for digital mental health interventions is a barrier to their uptake among clinicians and consumers. However, there are a number of factors that may contribute to whether a digital intervention is suitable for recommendation to the public. The aim of this study was to identify the types of evidence that would support the accreditation of digital interventions. METHOD: An expert workshop was convened, including researcher, clinician, consumer (people with lived experience of a mental health condition) and policymaker representatives. RESULTS: Existing methods for assessing the evidence for digital mental health interventions were discussed by the stakeholders present at the workshop. Empirical evidence from randomised controlled trials was identified as a key component for evaluating digital interventions. However, information on the safety of users, data security, user ratings, and fidelity to clinical guidelines, along with data from routine care including adherence, engagement and clinical outcomes, were also identified as important considerations when evaluating an intervention. There are considerable challenges in weighing the evidence for a digital mental health intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical evidence should be the cornerstone of any accreditation system to identify appropriate digital mental health interventions. However, robust accreditation systems should also account for program and user safety, user engagement and experience, and fidelity to clinical treatment guidelines. SAGE Publications 2019-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6755623/ /pubmed/31565238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2055207619878069 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Batterham, Philip J
Calear, Alison L
O’Dea, Bridianne
Larsen, Mark E
J Kavanagh, David
Titov, Nickolai
March, Sonja
Hickie, Ian
Teesson, Maree
Dear, Blake F
Reynolds, Julia
Lowinger, Jocelyn
Thornton, Louise
Gorman, Patrick
Stakeholder perspectives on evidence for digital mental health interventions: Implications for accreditation systems
title Stakeholder perspectives on evidence for digital mental health interventions: Implications for accreditation systems
title_full Stakeholder perspectives on evidence for digital mental health interventions: Implications for accreditation systems
title_fullStr Stakeholder perspectives on evidence for digital mental health interventions: Implications for accreditation systems
title_full_unstemmed Stakeholder perspectives on evidence for digital mental health interventions: Implications for accreditation systems
title_short Stakeholder perspectives on evidence for digital mental health interventions: Implications for accreditation systems
title_sort stakeholder perspectives on evidence for digital mental health interventions: implications for accreditation systems
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6755623/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31565238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2055207619878069
work_keys_str_mv AT batterhamphilipj stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT calearalisonl stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT odeabridianne stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT larsenmarke stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT jkavanaghdavid stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT titovnickolai stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT marchsonja stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT hickieian stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT teessonmaree stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT dearblakef stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT reynoldsjulia stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT lowingerjocelyn stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT thorntonlouise stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems
AT gormanpatrick stakeholderperspectivesonevidencefordigitalmentalhealthinterventionsimplicationsforaccreditationsystems