Towards a gold standard for internet-delivered programs in behavioral and mental health

Abstract

IntroductionTechnological innovation has been pervasive and has touched almost every aspect of modern life, including the delivery of behavioural and mental heath care. As telehealth expands, internet interventions are particularly interesting as a medium of delivering effective care. However, standards are required to help inform healthcare policy makers, providers, clinicians and patients.ObjectiveMove towards outlining a gold standard for internet-delivered behavioural and mental health interventions.AimsContribute and build upon existing standards and guidelines for the practice of telehealth, but to now extend these to include internet-delivered interventions.MethodsDrawing from research, experience and practice, the authors propose a matrix for the evaluation of what might be considered a gold standard for internet-delivered behavioural and mental health interventions.ResultsSeven elements are proposed and considered aspects of what would constitute a gold standard and they include, the use of evidence-based and empirically supported content, robust, engaging, secure and responsive technologies, shaped by behavioural health subject matter experts, employ user-centred design and development principles, have a focus on accountable care-achieving clinical outcomes, have research and evaluation that supports its effectiveness, and a well developed implementation science and support.ConclusionThe paper proposes some characteristics that could compose a gold standard for internet-delivered interventions for behavioural and mental health care. The contribution is neither exhaustive nor conclusive, but offers an invitation to the discussion.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Annual Research Review: Immersive virtual reality and digital applied gaming interventions for the treatment of mental health problems in children and young people: the need for rigorous treatment development and clinical evaluation

“…It is a considerable limitation of the studies reviewed that little reference is made to whether the interventions presented were co‐designed, that is, actively involved key stakeholders (e.g., service users, clinicians, service providers, and researchers) in the design process to ensure interventions meet their needs and are engaging and usable. Recent guidance for digital mental health innovations emphasize the importance of co‐design (Bevan Jones et al, 2020; Hill et al, 2018; Richards et al, 2016) due to the benefits it brings in terms of: (a) design quality (e.g., Yardley, Morrison, Bradbury, & Muller, 2015), (b) adherence (e.g., Howe, Batchelor, Coates, & Cashman, 2014), (c) usability (e.g., Maguire, 2001), and (d) stakeholder acceptance and adoption (e.g., Wölbling et al, 2012). Experiencing applied games/VR as effective and enjoyable is key for ensuring adherence and ultimately successful dissemination (Read & Shortell, 2011).…”

ICBT in routine care: A descriptive analysis of successful clinics in five countries

“…There were eight factors that all five clinics identified as contributing to their successful results, adding to the growing body of published research on the factors contributing to the successful delivery of ICBT in routine care (e.g., Hedman et al, 2012 ; Ruwaard et al, 2012 ; Andersson and Hedman, 2013 ; Erbe et al, 2017 ), and psychological services in general (e.g., Richards et al, 2016 ).…”

A qualitative evaluation of Pesky gNATs in primary care – The experiences of assistant psychologists providing computer-assisted CBT to children experiencing low mood and anxiety

“…Due to unmet needs in primary care, stepped models of care continue to explore the provision of cost-effective interventions using staff with various levels of psychology qualifications ( Kakuma et al, 2011 ; Kohn et al, 2004 ). This approach proposes that staff without professional psychology qualifications can be efficiently trained in structured CBT programs, for which there is some evidence of effectiveness ( Richards et al, 2016 ; Mead et al, 2005 ). Nonetheless, variable definitions as to what constitutes this type of staff (such as APs) have limited the generalizability of research heretofore.…”