Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30665384›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2019

A qualitative exploration of service user views about using digital health interventions for self-management in severe mental health problems.

Natalie Berry, Fiona Lobban, Sandra Bucci

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
12.8field-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.

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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 194 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. A qualitative exploration of factors that influence engagement with a digital mental health intervention for women with metastatic breast cancer: Finding My Way-Advanced.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

43 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Natalie BerryDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology University of Manchester, Brunswick Street, Manchester, UK. Natalie.berry@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7414-1541
Fiona LobbanSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, School of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Sandra BucciDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology University of Manchester, Brunswick Street, Manchester, UK.
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBMental Health Research UK · GB

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/14/04/16Department of Health PB-PG-0807-14075Medical Research Council MR/KD06665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development of digital health interventions (DHIs) for severe mental health problems is fast-paced. Researchers are beginning to consult service users to inform DHIs; however, much of this involvement has been limited to feedback on specific interventions post-DHI development. This study had two aims: 1. explore service user views towards DHIs for severe mental health problems; and 2. make recommendations for specific content within DHIs based on service user needs and suggestions.

methodsQualitative interviews with eighteen people with severe mental health problems focussed on two domains: 1) views about DHIs for severe mental health problems; and 2) ideas for future DHI content and design features. Data were analysed thematically.

resultsParticipants responses were captured in five key themes: 1) DHIs could be empowering tools that instigate reflection and change; 2) society is already divided; DHIs will further increase this divide; 3) considerations must be made about who has access to DHI data and how this data may be used; 4) DHIs should not be delivered without other support options; and 5) DHIs should provide a positive, fun, practical and interactive method for self-management.

conclusionsParticipants found DHIs acceptable due to the empowering nature of self-management and ability to take ownership of their own healthcare needs. However, concerns included the potential for digital exclusion, privacy and confidentiality and fears about DHIs being used to replace other mental health services. Service users want tools to help them self-manage their mental health, but also provide positive and recovery-focussed content that can be used in conjunction with other support options.

Indexed as

Mental HealthQualitative ResearchAdultFemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedReferral and ConsultationSelf-ManagementTelemedicineBipolar disorderDigital healtheHealthmHealthPsychosisQualitative

Identifiers

PMID30665384
PMCPMC6341527
OpenAlexW2912381274

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.