ArticlePloS one2021
Barriers and facilitators to the integration of digital technologies in mental health systems: A protocol for a qualitative systematic review.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of digital technologies in mental health systems: a qualitative systematic review to inform a policy framework.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- [Digital technologies to improve mental health].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDigital technology has the potential to improve health outcomes and health system performance in fragmented and under-funded mental health systems. Despite this potential, the integration of digital technology tools into mental health systems has been relatively poor. This is a protocol for a synthesis of qualitative evidence that will aim to determine the barriers and facilitators to integrating digital technologies in mental health systems and classify them in contextual domains at individual, organisational and system levels. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The methodological framework for systematic review of qualitative evidence described in Lockwood et al. will be applied to this review. A draft search strategy was developed in collaboration with an experienced senior health research librarian. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, Web of Science and Google Scholar, as well as hand searching of reference lists and reviews will identify relevant studies for inclusion. Study selection will be carried out independently by two authors, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The quality of selected studies will be assessed using JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Data will be charted using JBI QUARI Data Extraction Tool for Qualitative Research. Findings will be defined and classified both deductively in a priori conceptual framework and inductively by a thematic analysis. Results will be reported based on the Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research. The level of confidence of the findings will be assessed using GRADE-CERQual. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethics approval. The systematic review will inform policy and practices around improving the integration of digital technologies into mental health care systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.