Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34328429›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

Determining Acceptance of e-Mental Health Interventions in Digital Psychodiabetology Using a Quantitative Web-Based Survey: Cross-sectional Study.

Mirjam Damerau, Martin Teufel, Venja Musche, Hannah Dinse, Adam Schweda, Jil Beckord, Jasmin Steinbach, Kira Schmidt, Eva-Maria Skoda, Alexander Bäuerle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Patient acceptance of video consultations in cardiology.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  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

10 authors.

Mirjam DamerauClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR-University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9703-9512
Martin TeufelClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR-University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2120-1840
Venja MuscheClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR-University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1121-6897
Hannah DinseClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR-University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8855-2699
Adam SchwedaClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR-University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0887-2204
Jil BeckordClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR-University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3023-6738
Jasmin SteinbachClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR-University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2738-4089
Kira SchmidtClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR-University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2308-509X
Eva-Maria SkodaClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR-University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4667-5877
Alexander BäuerleClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR-University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1488-8592

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes is a very common chronic disease that exerts massive physiological and psychological burdens on patients. The digitalization of mental health care has generated effective e-mental health approaches, which offer an indubitable practical value for patient treatment. However, before implementing and optimizing e-mental health tools, their acceptance and underlying barriers and resources should be first determined for developing and establishing effective patient-oriented interventions.

objectiveThis study aims to assess the acceptance of e-mental health interventions among patients with diabetes and explore its underlying barriers and resources.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in Germany from April 9, 2020, to June 15, 2020, through a web-based survey for which patients were recruited via web-based diabetes channels. The eligibility requirements were adult age (18 years or older), a good command of the German language, internet access, and a diagnosis of diabetes. Acceptance was measured using a modified questionnaire, which was based on the well-established Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and assessed health-related internet use, acceptance of e-mental health interventions, and its barriers and resources. Mental health was measured using validated and established instruments, namely the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-2, and Distress Thermometer. In addition, sociodemographic and medical data regarding diabetes were collected.

resultsOf the 340 participants who started the survey, 261 (76.8%) completed it and the final sample comprised 258 participants with complete data sets. The acceptance of e-mental health interventions in patients with diabetes was overall moderate (mean 3.02, SD 1.14). Gender and having a mental disorder had a significant influence on acceptance (P<.001). In an extended UTAUT regression model (UTAUT predictors plus sociodemographics and mental health variables), distress (β=.11; P=.03) as well as the UTAUT predictors performance expectancy (β=.50; P<.001), effort expectancy (β=.15; P=.001), and social influence (β=.28; P<.001) significantly predicted acceptance. The comparison between an extended UTAUT regression model (13 predictors) and the UTAUT-only regression model (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence) revealed no significant difference in explained variance (F

conclusionsThis study supports the viability of the UTAUT model and its predictors in assessing the acceptance of e-mental health interventions among patients with diabetes. Three UTAUT predictors reached a notable amount of explained variance of 75% in the acceptance, indicating that it is a very useful and efficient method for measuring e-mental health intervention acceptance in patients with diabetes. Owing to the close link between acceptance and use, acceptance-facilitating interventions focusing on these three UTAUT predictors should be fostered to bring forward the highly needed establishment of effective e-mental health interventions in psychodiabetology.

Indexed as

acceptancediabetese-mental healthe-mental health interventionmental healthpsychodiabetologyUTAUT

Identifiers

PMID34328429
PMCPMC8367156

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.