Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30470681›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2018

Real-World Technology Use Among People With Mental Illnesses: Qualitative Study.

Elizabeth Carpenter-Song, Valerie A Noel, Stephanie C Acquilano, Robert E Drake

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Promoting meaningful recovery with digital mental health care.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2020
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  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

4 authors.

Elizabeth Carpenter-SongDepartment of Anthropology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7545-1717
Valerie A NoelWestat, Lebanon, NH, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8164-980X
Stephanie C AcquilanoThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1215-5531
Robert E DrakeWestat, Lebanon, NH, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5180-547X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing interest in using technology-based tools to support mental health recovery. Yet, despite evidence suggesting widespread access to technology among people with mental illnesses, interest in using technology to support mental health, and effectiveness of technology-based tools developed by researchers, such tools have not been widely adopted within mental health settings. Little is currently known about how mental health consumers are using technology to address mental health needs in real-world settings outside of controlled research studies.

objectiveThis qualitative study examined current practices and orientations toward technology among consumers in 3 mental health settings in the United States.

methodsEthnographic observations and semistructured interviews were conducted. Observations focused on if and how technology was salient within the setting and documented relevant behaviors, interactions, and dialogue in fieldnotes. Ethnographic data informed the development of a semistructured interview that inquired into technology use and interest among consumers (n=15) in a community mental health setting. Fieldnotes and interview transcripts were reviewed and coded by multiple researchers. Key concepts and patterns identified were refined by the research team to develop the main findings.

resultsOwnership of technology, although common, was not ubiquitous and was varied across the sites. Participants had varying levels of awareness regarding the key capabilities of modern technologies. Participants used technology for many purposes, but there was limited evidence of technology use to support mental health. Technology-based tools specific to mental health were not routinely used, although some participants found widely available mobile apps to be helpful in recovery.

conclusionsQualitative findings suggest that many, but not all, clients will be interested in using technology to support mental health needs. The variability in type and quality of technology owned by participants suggests the need to design for a range of functionality in the development of mental health tools. Findings also suggest thinking broadly about using existing platforms and widely available tools to support consumers in mental health recovery.

Indexed as

mental healthmobile phonequalitative researchtechnology

Identifiers

PMID30470681
PMCPMC6286425

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.