Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33118939›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2020

Consumer-Guided Development of an Engagement-Facilitation Intervention for Increasing Uptake and Adherence for Self-Guided Web-Based Mental Health Programs: Focus Groups and Online Evaluation Survey.

Amelia Gulliver, Alison L Calear, Matthew Sunderland, Frances Kay-Lambkin, Louise M Farrer, Michelle Banfield, Philip J Batterham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Consumer Perspectives on Anxiety Management in Australian General Practice.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. 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.

Amelia GulliverCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6351-9844
Alison L CalearCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7028-725X
Matthew SunderlandThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8452-364X
Frances Kay-LambkinPriority Research Centre for Brain and Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4252-5572
Louise M FarrerCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5694-4631
Michelle BanfieldCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3024-1687
Philip J BatterhamCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4547-6876

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-guided web-based mental health programs are effective in treating and preventing mental health problems. However, current engagement with these programs in the community is suboptimal, and there is limited evidence indicating how to increase the use of existing evidence-based programs.

objectiveThis study aims to investigate the views of people with lived experience of depression and anxiety on factors influencing their engagement with self-guided web-based mental health (e-mental health) programs and to use these perspectives to develop an engagement-facilitation intervention (EFI) to increase engagement (defined as both uptake and adherence) with these programs.

methodsA total of 24 community members (female=21; male=3) with lived experience of depression and anxiety or depression or anxiety alone participated in 1 of 4 focus groups discussing the factors influencing their engagement with self-guided e-mental health programs and the appearance, delivery mode, and functionality of content for the proposed EFI. A subsequent evaluation survey of the focus group participants (n=14) was conducted to evaluate the resultant draft EFI. Data were thematically analyzed using both inductive and deductive qualitative methods.

resultsParticipants suggested that the critical component of an EFI was information that would challenge personal barriers to engagement, including receiving personalized symptom feedback, information regarding the program's content or effectiveness and data security, and normalization of using e-mental health programs (eg, testimonials). Reminders, rewards, feedback about progress, and coaching were all mentioned as facilitating adherence.

conclusionsEFIs have the potential to improve community uptake of e-mental health programs. They should focus on providing information on the content and effectiveness of e-mental health programs and normalizing their use. Given that the sample comprised predominantly young females, this study may not be generalizable to other population groups. There is a strong value in involving people with a lived experience in the design and development of EFIs to maximize their effectiveness.

Indexed as

anxietydepressioninternetmental healthtechnologytreatment adherence and compliance

Identifiers

PMID33118939
PMCPMC7661236

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.