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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |