Preliminary effects of a digital mental health intervention for depression and anxiety

Orden, Mirjam van; Kraaijeveld, Jan C.; Spijker, Annet T.; Silven, Anna V; Bonten, Tobias; Chavannes, Niels H.; Dijke, Annemiek van

doi:10.1016/j.ceh.2022.06.002

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants perceive DTx a reliable source of information, but apart from that appraise them as less effective than face-to-face psychotherapy. Even though DTx are not perceived as a substitute, research shows comparable effects of digital interventions and face-to-face treatment ( 20 , 54 ), but reliable evaluations for digital mental health interventions are not comprehensive ( 20 , 55 ). According to the admission process, permanently listed DTx fulfilled higher evaluation standards ( 24 ) to examine effectiveness and contribute to evidence-based mental health care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A qualitative interview study of patients' attitudes towards and intention to use digital interventions for depressive disorders on prescription

Posselt,

Baumann,

Dierks

2024

Front. Digit. Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDepressive disorders are an emerging public health topic. Due to their increasing prevalence, patients with depressive disorders suffer from the lack of therapeutic treatment. Digital health interventions may offer an opportunity to bridge waiting times, supplement, or even substitute in-person treatment. Among others, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) explains that actual technology use is affected by users' behavioural intention. However, patients' perspectives on digital interventions are rarely discussed within the specific context of primary care provided by general practitioners (GP) and need further exploration.MethodA qualitative study design with semi-structured interviews was used to explore DTx-acceptance of patients with mild or moderate depression (n = 17). The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded, and thematically analysed by qualitative content analysis.ResultsPatients' performance expectancies reveal that DTx are not perceived as a substitute for face-to-face treatment. Effort expectancies include potential advantages and efforts concerning technical, motivational, and skill-based aspects. Moreover, we identified health status and experience with depressive disorders as other determinants and potential barriers to patients' DTx acceptance: Difficult stages of depression or long-time experience are perceived hurdles for DTx use. GPs' recommendations were just partly relevant for patients and varied according to patients' consultancy preferences. But still, GPs have a crucial role for access due to prescription. GPs' influence on patients' DTx acceptance varies between three situations: (1) pre-use for consultation, (2) pre-use for access and (3) during DTx-use. Further, GPs' guidance could be especially relevant for patients during DTx-use in routine care.DiscussionThe UTAUT-based exploration suggests that acceptance determinants should be considered independently and embedded in personal and situational aspects. DTx require a healthcare professional to prescribe or diagnose the disease, unlike other digital offerings. We identified prescription- and depression-related determinants, exceeding existing theoretical constructs. GPs' guidance can compensate for some barriers to DTx use e.g., by increasing commitment and motivational support to strengthen patients' acceptance.ConclusionWe argue for a multidimensional integration of acceptance determinants for further development of health technology acceptance research. Future research should specify how DTx can be integrated into routine care to strengthen user acceptance.

show abstract