Adoption of technology‐enhanced treatments: Conceptual and practical considerations.

Abstract

As the efficacy of technology-enhanced mental health service delivery models (i.e., supportive or adjunctive technological tools) are examined, we must inform and guide clinician decision-making regarding acceptance and, in turn, uptake. Accordingly, this review aims to move beyond traditional discussions of geographic barriers by integrating, reconciling, and extending literatures on dissemination and implementation, as well as technology uptake, in order to anticipate and address organizational and clinician barriers to adoption of technology-enhancements. Specifically, a five-stage model is proposed to address organizational readiness for and clinician acceptance of technology-enhancements to evidence-based treatments, as well as the relevance of current adoption strategies for technology-enhanced services. Our aim is to provide a guiding framework for future research and practice.

Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies

“…Chambers et al’s dynamic sustainability framework recognizes that, in order to be sustained, an innovation must adapt to its unique local environment and evolve over time [ 115 ], echoing Hawe et al’s conceptualization of interventions as “events in [complex] systems” [ 116 ]. Several other recently published technology implementation frameworks have embraced complexity theory and argued strongly for a developmental, contextualized, and adaptive approach [ 43 , 47 , 53 - 60 ].…”

“…In sum, we found the integrated frameworks of van Gemert-Pijnen et al [ 43 ] and Van Dyk [ 59 ] extremely helpful and used them as the starting point for analyzing our own dataset, modifying and refining them in the light of other high-quality frameworks published subsequently [ 53 - 55 , 60 ], and adding additional theoretical concepts (eg, burden of disease, health literacy, organizational resilience) and insights from our empirical data (especially our findings on the diverse and idiosyncratic nature of many conditions, which had received little attention in any previous framework).…”

Optimizing Engagement in Behavioral Parent Training: Progress Toward a Technology-Enhanced Treatment Model

“…This suggests that if we can keep families coming consistently each week then TE-HNC may allow them to complete services more efficiently. Moreover, TE-HNC efficiency did not come at the cost of consumer satisfaction, which we know is a worry for therapists as technology increasingly intersects with mental health delivery ( Anton and Jones, 2017 , Anton and Jones, 2019 ). Efficiency comes without significant added implementation costs as well, suggesting the promise of a cost-effective approach.…”

“…It was predicted that the TE-HNC group would have higher levels of engagement relative to HNC and that those gains would be achieved with greater efficiency of service delivery without significantly increased implementation costs. Given documented clinicians’ concerns regarding technology compromising treatment process ( Anton and Jones, 2017 , Anton and Jones, 2019 ), we also compared parent satisfaction between the two groups.…”

Perceived acceptability of wearable devices for the treatment of mental health problems

“…Respondents' preference for clinician involvement with wearables is consistent with previous work demonstrating that e‐mental health interventions are more acceptable and/or helpful when coupled with therapeutic support (Berry et al, 2016; Casey, Joy, & Clough, 2013; Klein & Cook, 2010). Research suggests that the guided use of e‐mental health interventions results in fewer dropouts (Anton & Jones, 2017) and superior clinical outcomes (Mehrotra et al, 2017) relative to unguided use. Equally, the use of e‐mental health interventions as adjuncts to face‐to‐face interventions may improve compliance with the primary treatment (Lui et al, 2017).…”