Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31344671›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Use of the Principles of Design Thinking to Address Limitations of Digital Mental Health Interventions for Youth: Viewpoint.

Hanneke Scholten, Isabela Granic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Investigating the Role of Situational Disruptors in Engagement with Digital Mental Health Tools.CSCW : proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 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

2 authors.

Hanneke Scholten *Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5471-6093
Isabela Granic *Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6213-136X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous reviews and meta-analyses have indicated the enormous potential of technology to improve the appeal, effectiveness, cost, and reach of mental health interventions. However, the promise of digital mental health interventions for youth has not yet been realized. Significant challenges have been repeatedly identified, including engagement, fidelity, and the lack of personalization. We introduce the main tenets of design thinking and explain how they can specifically address these challenges, with an entirely new toolbox of mindsets and practices. In addition, we provide examples of a new wave of digital interventions to demonstrate the applicability of design thinking to a wide range of intervention goals. In the future, it will be critical for scientists and clinicians to implement their scientific standards, methods, and review outlets to evaluate the contribution of design thinking to the next iteration of digital mental health interventions for youth.

Indexed as

AdolescentData CollectionHumansMental HealthResearch DesignTechnologyanxietydepressiondesign thinkinge-mental healthyouth

Identifiers

PMID31344671
PMCPMC6682276

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.