Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31763990›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2019

Acceptance and Expectations of Medical Experts, Students, and Patients Toward Electronic Mental Health Apps: Cross-Sectional Quantitative and Qualitative Survey Study.

Gwendolyn Mayer, Nadine Gronewold, Simone Alvarez, Bastian Bruns, Thomas Hilbel, Jobst-Hendrik Schultz

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 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
–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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  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

6 authors.

Gwendolyn MayerDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5886-3226
Nadine GronewoldDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2811-948X
Simone AlvarezMedical Faculty of Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0963-8938
Bastian BrunsDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7393-3982
Thomas HilbelElectrical Engineering and Applied Sciences, Westphalian University of Applied Sciences, Gelsenkirchen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8071-4876
Jobst-Hendrik SchultzDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9433-3970

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe acceptability of electronic mental (e-mental) health apps has already been studied. However, the attitudes of medical experts, students, and patients taking into account their knowledge of and previous experiences with e-mental health apps have not been investigated.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the attitudes, expectations, and concerns of medical experts, including physicians, psychotherapists and nursing staff, students of medicine or psychology, and patients toward e-mental health apps when considering their knowledge of and former experiences with e-mental health apps.

methodsThis cross-sectional quantitative and qualitative survey was based on a self-developed questionnaire. A total of 269 participants were included (104 experts, 80 students, and 85 patients), and 124 eligible participants answered a paper version and 145 answered an identical online version of the questionnaire. The measures focused on existing knowledge of and experiences with e-mental health apps, followed by a question on whether electronic health development was generally accepted or disliked. Further, we asked about the expectations for an ideal e-mental health app and possible concerns felt by the participants. All items were either presented on a 5-point Likert scale or as multiple-choice questions. Additionally, 4 items were presented as open text fields.

resultsAlthough 33.7% (35/104) of the experts, 15.0% (12/80) of the students, and 41.2% (35/85) of the patients knew at least one e-mental health app, few had already tried one (9/104 experts [8.7%], 1/80 students [1.3%], 22/85 patients [25.9%]). There were more advocates than skeptics in each group (advocates: 71/104 experts [68.3%], 50/80 students [62.5%], 46/85 patients [54.1%]; skeptics: 31/104 experts [29.8%], 20/80 students [25.0%], 26/85 patients [30.6%]). The experts, in particular, believed, that e-mental health apps will gain importance in the future (mean 1.08, SD 0.68; 95% CI 0.94-1.21). When asked about potential risks, all groups reported slight concerns regarding data security (mean 0.85, SD 1.09; 95% CI 0.72-0.98). Patient age was associated with several attitudes toward e-mental health apps (future expectations: r=-0.31, P=.005; total risk score: r=0.22, P=.05). Attitudes toward e-mental health apps correlated negatively with the professional experience of the experts (r

conclusionsAs opposed to patients, medical experts and students lack knowledge of and experience with e-mental health apps. If present, the experiences were assessed positively. However, experts show a more open-minded attitude with less fear of risks. Although some risks were perceived regarding data security, the attitudes and expectations of all groups were rather positive. Older patients and medical experts with long professional experience tend to express more skepticism.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00013095; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do? navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00013095.

Indexed as

acceptancedepressioneHealthexpectationexpertsinterventionsmHealthpatientsriskstudentstelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID31763990
PMCPMC6902133

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.