Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31356151›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2019

Analysis of the Recomposition of Norms and Representations in the Field of Psychiatry and Mental Health in the Age of Electronic Mental Health: Qualitative Study.

Margot Morgiève, Déborah Sebbane, Bianca De Rosario, Vincent Demassiet, Soraya Kabbaj, Xavier Briffault, Jean-Luc Roelandt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

7 authors.

Margot MorgièveWorld Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health, Établissement Public de Santé Mentale Lille Metropole, Lille-Hellemmes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1305-3860
Déborah SebbaneWorld Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health, Établissement Public de Santé Mentale Lille Metropole, Lille-Hellemmes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5688-6515
Bianca De RosarioWorld Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health, Établissement Public de Santé Mentale Lille Metropole, Lille-Hellemmes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3562-4951
Vincent DemassietWorld Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health, Établissement Public de Santé Mentale Lille Metropole, Lille-Hellemmes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9689-6600
Soraya KabbajWorld Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health, Établissement Public de Santé Mentale Lille Metropole, Lille-Hellemmes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9996-3146
Xavier BriffaultCermes3, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0766-0442
Jean-Luc RoelandtWorld Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health, Établissement Public de Santé Mentale Lille Metropole, Lille-Hellemmes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6033-5254

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor the World Health Organization, electronic health (eHealth) is seen as an effective way to improve therapeutic practices and disease prevention in health. Digital tools lead to major changes in the field of mental medicine, but specific analyses are required to understand and accompany these changes.

objectiveOur objective was to highlight the positions of the different stakeholders of the mental health care system on eHealth services and tools, as well as to establish professional and user group profiles of these positions and the uses of these services.

methodsIn order to acquire the opinions and expectations of different categories of people, we carried out a qualitative study based on 10 focus groups (n=70, from 3-12 people per group) composed of: general practitioners, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists, nurses, caregivers, mental health services users, user representatives, and the general public. The analyses of focus group discussions were performed independently by four investigators through a common analysis grid. The constant comparative method was adopted within this framework.

resultsThe interviewees expressed different problems that new technologies engender in the field of mental health. What was previously strictly under the jurisdiction of physicians now tends to be fragmented and distributed over different groups and locations. New technologies reposition care in the field of domestic, rather than therapeutic, activities, and thus the conception of care as an autonomous activity in the subject's life is questioned. The ideal of social autonomy through technology is part of the new logic of health democracy and empowerment, which is linked to a strong, contemporary aspiration to perform. Participants emphasized that there was the potential risk of a decrease in autonomy for the digitally engaged patient, while personal empowerment could become a set of obligations.

conclusionsThis qualitative research highlights the heterogeneity of opinions among the groups and within each group. It suggests that opinions on electronic mental health devices are still far from being stabilized, and that a change management process should be set up to both regulate the development and facilitate the use of these tools.

Indexed as

caregiversdigital tools.ehealthfocus groupmental healthpsychiatryqualitative analysissocial representationsusers

Identifiers

PMID31356151
PMCPMC6819010

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.