Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37067869›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2023

Digital Technology Use and Mental Health Consultations: Survey of the Views and Experiences of Clinicians and Young People.

Raphael Rifkin-Zybutz, Nicholas Turner, Jane Derges, Helen Bould, Felicity Sedgewick, Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Myles-Jay Linton, Paul Moran, Lucy Biddle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Raphael Rifkin-ZybutzCentre for Academic Mental Health, Bristol University Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1230-0847
Nicholas TurnerPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol University Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1591-6997
Jane DergesCentre for Academic Mental Health, Bristol University Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3973-3212
Helen BouldCentre for Academic Mental Health, Bristol University Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8163-3210
Felicity SedgewickSchool of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4068-617X
Rachael Gooberman-HillBristol University Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3353-2882
Myles-Jay LintonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol University Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2251-7727
Paul MoranCentre for Academic Mental Health, Bristol University Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9257-8699
Lucy BiddlePopulation Health Sciences, Bristol University Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1090-8771
University of Bristol · GBNational Health Service · GB

Funding

EPA EP-D-17-018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital technologies play an increasingly important role in the lives of young people and have important effects on their mental health.

objectiveWe aimed to explore 3 key areas of the intersection between digital technology and mental health: the views and experiences of young people and clinicians about digital technology and mental health; implementation and barriers to the UK national guidance recommendation-that the discussion of digital technology use should form a core part of mental health assessment; and how digital technology might be used to support existing consultations.

methodsTwo cross-sectional web-based surveys were conducted in 2020 between June and December, with mental health clinicians (n=99) and young people (n=320). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the proportions. Multilinear regression was used to explore how the answers varied by gender, sexuality, and age. Thematic analysis was used to explore the contents of the extended free-text answers. Anxiety was measured using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-7 (GAD-7).

resultsDigital technology use was ubiquitous among young people, with positive and negative aspects acknowledged by both clinicians and young people. Negative experiences were common (131/284, 46.1%) and were associated with increased anxiety levels among young people (GAD-7 3.29; 95% CI 1.97-4.61; P<.001). Although the discussion of digital technology use was regarded as important by clinicians and acceptable by young people, less than half of clinicians (42/85, 49.4%) routinely asked about the use of digital technology and over a third of young people (48/121, 39.6%) who had received mental health care had never been asked about their digital technology use. The conversations were often experienced as unhelpful. Helpful conversations were characterized by greater depth and exploration of how an individual's digital technology use related to mental health. Despite most clinicians (59/83, 71.1%) wanting training, very few (21/86, 24.4%) reported receiving training. Clinicians were open to viewing mental health data from apps or social media to help with consultations. Although young people were generally, in theory, comfortable sharing such data with health professionals, when presented with a binary choice, most reported not wanting to share social media (84/117, 71.8%) or app data (67/118, 56.8%) during consultations.

conclusionsDigital technology use was common, and negative experiences were frequent and associated with anxiety. Over a third of young people were not asked about their digital technology use during mental health consultations, and potentially valuable information about relevant negative experiences on the web was not being captured during consultations. Clinicians would benefit from having access to training to support these discussions with young people. Although young people recognized that app data could be helpful to clinicians, they appeared hesitant to share their own data. This finding suggests that data sharing has barriers that need to be further explored.

Indexed as

adolescentanxietychildinternetmental healthpatient-physician relationship

Identifiers

PMID37067869
PMCPMC10152330
OpenAlexW4321384889

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.