Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29549072›Full record

ReviewJMIR mental health2018

Improving Implementation of eMental Health for Mood Disorders in Routine Practice: Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitating Factors.

Christiaan Vis, Mayke Mol, Annet Kleiboer, Leah Bührmann, Tracy Finch, Jan Smit, Heleen Riper

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR mental health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04948996 (Effectiveness of Group Versus Individual Self-management of Depression Using a Mobile App to Increase Treatment Adherence Among Users of a University-based Helpline in the Dominican Republic.), which is not on this map. Cited by 122 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
17.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04948996 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of Group Versus Individual Self-management of Depression Using a Mobile App to Increase Treatment Adherence Among Users of a University-based Helpline in the Dominican Republic.

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorthern Illinois UniversityRan2021 to 2021Enrolled27ConditionsDepression Mild, Depression ModerateArmsEl Buen Consejo Móvil- Group (EBCM-G), El Buen Consejo Móvil- Individual (EBCM-I)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

122 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 211 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Matching depression management to severity prognosis in primary care: results of the Target-D randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article

62 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Christiaan VisDepartment of Clinical, Neuro-, & Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8783-8487
Mayke MolDepartment of Mental Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center / Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8568-8497
Annet KleiboerDepartment of Clinical, Neuro-, & Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8040-5697
Leah BührmannDepartment of Clinical, Neuro-, & Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6957-4369
Tracy FinchHealthcare & Implementation Science, Department of Nursing, Midwifery & Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8647-735X
Jan SmitDepartment of Mental Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center / Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2062-8378
Heleen RiperDepartment of Clinical, Neuro-, & Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8144-8901
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLGGZ inGeest · NLNorthumbria University · GBUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic mental health interventions (eMental health or eMH) can be used to increase accessibility of mental health services for mood disorders, with indications of comparable clinical outcomes as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, the actual use of eMH in routine mental health care lags behind expectations. Identifying the factors that might promote or inhibit implementation of eMH in routine care may help to overcome this gap between effectiveness studies and routine care.

objectiveThis paper reports the results of a systematic review of the scientific literature identifying those determinants of practices relevant to implementing eMH for mood disorders in routine practice.

methodsA broad search strategy was developed with high sensitivity to four key terms: implementation, mental health care practice, mood disorder, and eMH. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was applied to guide the review and structure the results. Thematic analysis was applied to identify the most important determinants that facilitate or hinder implementation of eMH in routine practice.

resultsA total of 13,147 articles were screened, of which 48 studies were included in the review. Most studies addressed aspects of the reach (n=33) of eMH, followed by intervention adoption (n=19), implementation of eMH (n=6), and maintenance (n=4) of eMH in routine care. More than half of the studies investigated the provision of mental health services through videoconferencing technologies (n=26), followed by Internet-based interventions (n=20). The majority (n=44) of the studies were of a descriptive nature. Across all RE-AIM domains, we identified 37 determinants clustered in six main themes: acceptance, appropriateness, engagement, resources, work processes, and leadership. The determinants of practices are expressed at different levels, including patients, mental health staff, organizations, and health care system level. Depending on the context, these determinants hinder or facilitate successful implementation of eMH.

conclusionsOf the 37 determinants, three were reported most frequently: (1) the acceptance of eMH concerning expectations and preferences of patients and professionals about receiving and providing eMH in routine care, (2) the appropriateness of eMH in addressing patients' mental health disorders, and (3) the availability, reliability, and interoperability with other existing technologies such as the electronic health records are important factors for mental health care professionals to remain engaged in providing eMH to their patients in routine care. On the basis of the taxonomy of determinants of practices developed in this review, implementation-enhancing interventions can be designed and applied to achieve better implementation outcomes. Suggestions for future research and implementation practice are provided.

Indexed as

barriers and facilitatorsdeterminants of practiceseMental healthimplementationmood disordersRE-AIMreviewroutine practice

Identifiers

PMID29549072
PMCPMC5878369
OpenAlexW2790124019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.