Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29945858›Full record

ReviewJMIR mental health2018

eMental Healthcare Technologies for Anxiety and Depression in Childhood and Adolescence: Systematic Review of Studies Reporting Implementation Outcomes.

Lori Wozney, Patrick J McGrath, Nicole D Gehring, Kathryn Bennett, Anna Huguet, Lisa Hartling, Michele P Dyson, Amir Soleimani, Amanda S Newton

Abstract 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. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Lori Wozney *Izaak Walton Killam Centre, Centre for Research in Family Health, Halifax, NS, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4280-3322
Patrick J McGrath *Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9568-2571
Nicole D GehringDepartment of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5275-3413
Kathryn Bennett *Offord Centre for Child Studies, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (formerly Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8211-237X
Anna Huguet *Izaak Walton Killam Centre, Centre for Research in Family Health, Halifax, NS, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4002-8644
Lisa Hartling *Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8341-3991
Michele P Dyson *Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4856-2283
Amir SoleimaniDepartment of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5997-2424
Amanda S NewtonDepartment of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3020-674X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnxiety disorders and depression are frequent conditions in childhood and adolescence. eMental healthcare technologies may improve access to services, but their uptake within health systems is limited.

objectiveThe objective of this review was to examine and describe how the implementation of eMental healthcare technologies for anxiety disorders and depression in children and adolescents has been studied.

methodsWe conducted a search of 5 electronic databases and gray literature. Eligible studies were those that assessed an eMental healthcare technology for treating or preventing anxiety or depression, included children or adolescents (<18 years), or their parents or healthcare providers and reported findings on technology implementation. The methodological quality of studies was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Outcomes of interest were based on 8 implementation outcomes: acceptability (satisfaction with a technology), adoption (technology uptake and utilization), appropriateness ("fitness for purpose"), cost (financial impact of technology implementation), feasibility (extent to which a technology was successfully used), fidelity (implementation as intended), penetration ("spread" or "reach" of the technology), and sustainability (maintenance or integration of a technology within a healthcare service). For extracted implementation outcome data, we coded favorable ratings on measurement scales as "positive results" and unfavorable ratings on measurement scales as "negative results." Those studies that reported both positive and negative findings were coded as having "mixed results."

resultsA total of 46 studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were rated as very good to excellent in methodological quality. These studies investigated eMental healthcare technologies for anxiety (n=23), depression (n=18), or both anxiety and depression (n=5). Studies of technologies for anxiety evaluated the following: (1) acceptability (78%) reported high levels of satisfaction, (2) adoption (43%) commonly reported positive results, and (3) feasibility (43%) reported mixed results. Studies of technologies for depression evaluated the following: (1) appropriateness (56%) reported moderate helpfulness and (2) acceptability (50%) described a mix of both positive and negative findings. Studies of technologies designed to aid anxiety and depression commonly reported mixed experiences with acceptability and adoption and positive findings for appropriateness of the technologies for treatment. Across all studies, cost, fidelity, and penetration and sustainability were the least measured implementation outcomes.

conclusionsAcceptability of eMental healthcare technology is high among users and is the most commonly investigated implementation outcome. Perceptions of the appropriateness and adoption of eMental healthcare technology were varied. Implementation research that identifies, evaluates, and reports on costs, sustainability, and fidelity to clinical guidelines is crucial for making high-quality eMental healthcare available to children and adolescents.

Indexed as

decision-makingeHealthhealthcare organizationshealthcare planningimplementation sciencemental healthorganizational innovation

Identifiers

PMID29945858
PMCPMC6039769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.