Electronic versions of journal articles will be accessible prior to the print publication, expediting access to the latest peer-reviewed research.All PsycARTICLES institutional customers, individual APA PsycNET database package subscribers, and individual journal subscribers may now search these records as an added benefit. Online First Publication (OFP) records can be released within as little as 30 days of acceptance and transfer into production, and are marked to indicate the posting status, allowing researchers to quickly and easily discover the latest literature. OFP articles will be the version of record; the articles have gone through the full production cycle except for assignment to an issue and pagination. After a journal issue's print publication, OFP records will be replaced with the final published article to reflect the final status and bibliographic information.

BackgroundThe number of e-mental health apps is increasing rapidly. Studies have shown that the use of some apps is beneficial, whereas others are ineffective or do not meet users’ privacy expectations. Individuals and organizations that curate, recommend, host, use, or pay for apps have an interest in categorizing apps according to the consensus criteria of usability and effectiveness. Others have previously published recommendations for assessing health-related apps; however, the extent to which these recommendations can be generalized across different population groups (eg, culture, gender, and language) remains unclear. This study describes an attempt by Canadian stakeholders to develop an e-mental health assessment framework that responds to the unique needs of people living in Canada in an evidence-based manner.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to achieve consensus from a broad group of Canadian stakeholders on guiding principles and criteria for a framework to assess e-mental health apps in Canada.MethodsWe developed an initial set of guiding principles and criteria from a rapid review and environmental scan of pre-existing app assessment frameworks. The initial list was refined through a two-round modified Delphi process. Participants (N=25) included app developers and users, health care providers, mental health advocates, people with lived experience of a mental health problem or mental illness, policy makers, and researchers. Consensus on each guideline or criterion was defined a priori as at least 70% agreement. The first round of voting was conducted electronically. Prior to Round 2 voting, in-person presentations from experts and a persona empathy mapping process were used to explore the perspectives of diverse stakeholders.ResultsOf all respondents, 68% (17/25) in Round 1 and 100% (13/13) in Round 2 agreed that a framework for evaluating health apps is needed to help Canadian consumers identify high-quality apps. Consensus was reached on 9 guiding principles: evidence based, gender responsive, culturally appropriate, user centered, risk based, internationally aligned, enabling innovation, transparent and fair, and based on ethical norms. In addition, 15 informative and evaluative criteria were defined to assess the effectiveness, functionality, clinical applicability, interoperability, usability, transparency regarding security and privacy, security or privacy standards, supported platforms, targeted users, developers’ transparency, funding transparency, price, user desirability, user inclusion, and meaningful inclusion of a diverse range of communities.ConclusionsCanadian mental health stakeholders reached the consensus on a framework of 9 guiding principles and 15 criteria important in assessing e-mental health apps. What differentiates the Canadian framework from other scales is explicit attention to user inclusion at all stages of the development, gender responsiveness, and cultural appropriateness. Furthermore, an empathy mapping process markedly influenced the development of the framewor...

Objective: To pilot benchmark measures of health information and communication technology (ICT) availability and use to facilitate cross-country learning. Materials and Methods: A prior Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development–led effort involving 30 countries selected and defined functionality-based measures for availability and use of electronic health records, health information exchange, personal health records, and telehealth. In this pilot, an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Working Group compiled results for 38 countries for a subset of measures with broad coverage using new and/or adapted country-specific or multinational surveys and other sources from 2012 to 2015. We also synthesized country learnings to inform future benchmarking. Results: While electronic records are widely used to store and manage patient information at the point of care—all but 2 pilot countries reported use by at least half of primary care physicians; many had rates above 75%—patient information exchange across organizations/settings is less common. Large variations in the availability and use of telehealth and personal health records also exist. Discussion: Pilot participation demonstrated interest in cross-national benchmarking. Using the most comparable measures available to date, it showed substantial diversity in health ICT availability and use in all domains. The project also identified methodological considerations (e.g., structural and health systems issues that can affect measurement) important for future comparisons. Conclusion: While health policies and priorities differ, many nations aim to increase access, quality, and/or efficiency of care through effective ICT use. By identifying variations and describing key contextual factors, benchmarking offers the potential to facilitate cross-national learning and accelerate the progress of individual countries.

BackgroundWeb-based patient access to personal health information is limited but increasing in Canada and internationally.ObjectiveThis exploratory study aimed to increase understanding of how Web-based access to laboratory test results in British Columbia (Canada), which has been broadly available since 2010, affects patients’ experiences.MethodsIn November 2013, we surveyed adults in British Columbia who had had a laboratory test in the previous 12 months. Using a retrospective cohort design, we compared reported wait-time for results, test result comprehension, and anxiety levels of “service users” who had Web-based access to their test results (n=2047) with those of a general population panel that did not have Web-based access (n=1245).ResultsThe vast majority of service users (83.99%, 95% CI 82.31-85.67) said they received their results within “a few days”, compared to just over a third of the comparison group (37.84%, 95% CI 34.96-40.73). Most in both groups said they understood their test results, but the rate was lower for service users than the comparison group (75.55%, 95% CI 73.58-77.49 vs 84.69%, 95% CI 82.59-86.81). There was no significant difference between groups in levels of reported anxiety after receiving test results.ConclusionsWhile most patients who received their laboratory test results online reported little anxiety after receiving their results and were satisfied with the service, there may be opportunities to improve comprehension of results.