Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32706691›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2020

Implementation Determinants and Outcomes of a Technology-Enabled Service Targeting Suicide Risk in High Schools: Mixed Methods Study.

Molly Adrian, Jessica Coifman, Michael D Pullmann, Jennifer B Blossom, Casey Chandler, Glen Coppersmith, Paul Thompson, Aaron R Lyon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Molly AdrianDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6415-4434
Jessica CoifmanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7473-0813
Michael D PullmannDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8404-864X
Jennifer B BlossomSeattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7084-3765
Casey ChandlerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8646-9907
Glen CoppersmithQntfy, Arlington, VA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3494-7388
Paul ThompsonThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2002-9436
Aaron R LyonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3657-5060

Funding

AHRQ HHS K12 HS022982
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnology-enabled services (TESs), which integrate human service and digital components, are popular strategies to increase the reach and impact of mental health interventions, but large-scale implementation of TESs has lagged behind their potential.

objectiveThis study applied a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach to gather input from multiple key user groups (students and educators) and to understand the factors that support successful implementation (implementation determinants) and implementation outcomes of a TES for universal screening, ongoing monitoring, and support for suicide risk management in the school setting.

methodsA total of 111 students in the 9th to 12th grade completed measures regarding implementation outcomes (acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness) via an open-ended survey. A total of 9 school personnel (school-based mental health clinicians, nurses, and administrators) completed laboratory-based usability testing of a dashboard tracking the suicide risk of students, quantitative measures, and qualitative interviews to understand key implementation outcomes and determinants. School personnel were presented with a series of scenarios and common tasks focused on the basic features and functions of the dashboard. Directed content analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to extract multilevel determinants (ie, the barriers or facilitators at the levels of the outer setting, inner setting, individuals, intervention, and implementation process) related to positive implementation outcomes of the TES.

resultsOverarching themes related to implementation determinants and outcomes suggest that both student and school personnel users view TESs for suicide prevention as moderately feasible and acceptable based on the Acceptability of Intervention Measure and Feasibility of Intervention Measure and as needing improvements in usability based on the System Usability Scale. Qualitative results suggest that students and school personnel view passive data collection based on social media data as a relative advantage to the current system; however, the findings indicate that the TES and the school setting need to address issues of privacy, integration into existing workflows and communication patterns, and options for individualization for student-centered care.

conclusionsInnovative suicide prevention strategies that rely on passive data collection in the school context are a promising and appealing idea. Usability testing identified key issues for revision to facilitate widespread implementation.

Indexed as

mobile phoneschool-based mental healthsuicide preventiontechnology-enabled servicesuser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID32706691
PMCPMC7399956

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.