Unlocking the potential for digital mental health technologies in the UK: a Delphi exercise

Abstract

Background Digitally enabled services can contribute to the support, treatment and prevention of mental health difficulties; however, questions remain regarding how we can most usefully harness such technology in primary and secondary mental healthcare settings. Aims To identify barriers and facilitators to enable the potential of digital mental health in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Method A three-round Delphi exercise was carried out online with 16 participants from across the four nations of the UK representing the following stakeholder groups: service providers, health professionals, policymakers, lived experience, small and medium enterprises and academics. Qualitative data were collected in the first round (80 fragments) that were then coded to produce a 26-item round-two questionnaire for participant rating. Participants were given the opportunity to reconsider their scores in light of the group responses in round three. Results Eight statements under the following five themes reached consensus with median scores between 8 and 10 (i.e. important/very important): co-production; the human element; data security; funding; and regulation. Conclusions The Delphi process allowed consensus to be achieved regarding the factors that experts consider important for harnessing technology in primary and secondary mental healthcare. Knowledge of these factors can help users and providers of mental health services negotiate how best to move forward with digitally enabled systems of care.

Ensuring patient and public involvement in the transition to AI‐assisted mental health care: A systematic scoping review and agenda for design justice

“…Overall, there was little evidence of work that pursued or engaged in PPI, or patient involvement (5 articles). Nevertheless, the literature does reveal multiple modes for engagement of users, including the following: Design as inclusive practice, for example experts by experience and user representatives within design teams as communities of practice 54 Patient‐focused research networks, research collaborations and projects, for example patient‐practitioner‐researcher collaboration 55 User‐focused design practices, for example workflow analysis, user feedback, 56 user experience design (UX design) or testing, and ‘engagement checks’ within a user‐centred approach to engage specific user groups in co‐design 57 Experience‐led design or research methods, for example experience‐based co‐design (EBCD) 58 ; and theory‐driven approaches, for example user‐centric explainable AI (XAI) 35 Qualitative research, for example methods to capture patient or user perspectives, including focus groups, patient interviews, ethnography and observation, and semi‐structured interviews 59 Quantitative methods, for example patient surveys, rating scales and PROs Consensus building, for example Delphi methods 60 Involvement of communities or social networks in decision making or the provision of care 61 …”

Co-development of a Best Practice Checklist for Mental Health Data Science: A Delphi Study

“…Delphi studies, which typically recruit between 15 and 30 experts (22), have previously been used to derive guidelines in mental health-related areas such as post-disaster psychosocial care, and first aid recommendations for psychosis and suicidal ideation (23)(24)(25)(26). Whilst some previous studies have sought to consolidate the views of distinct groups of stakeholders (27), we took the approach of recruiting people with personal or professional expertise in both mental illness and data science. This ensured that the participants themselves were in a position to weigh up the relative merits of the information from both perspectives, and reduced the need for researcher involvement in handling potential trade-offs.…”

Experts’ views on the implementation of digital interventions for eating disorders: A Delphi study

“…Steps 2 and 3 were based on the methodology used by Murphy, Thorpe, Trefusis, and Kousoulis (23). Informed consent was given electronically during step 1 and was con rmed verbally on the telephone prior to the interviews.…”