Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37803367›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2023

Digital tools to support mental health: a survey study in psychosis.

Emily Eisner, Natalie Berry, Sandra Bucci

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

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

3 authors.

Emily EisnerDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, 2nd Floor Zochonis Building, Brunswick Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Natalie BerryDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, 2nd Floor Zochonis Building, Brunswick Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Sandra BucciDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, 2nd Floor Zochonis Building, Brunswick Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Sandra.bucci@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P026664/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a notable a gap between promising research findings and implementation of digital health tools. Understanding and addressing barriers to use is key to widespread implementation.

methodsA survey was administered to a self-selecting sample in-person (n = 157) or online (n = 58), with questions examining: i) ownership and usage rates of digital devices among people with psychosis; ii) interest in using technology to engage with mental health services; and iii) facilitators of and barriers to using digital tools in a mental healthcare context.

resultsDevice ownership: Virtually all participants owned a mobile phone (95%) or smartphone (90%), with Android phones slightly more prevalent than iPhones. Only a minority owned a fitness tracker (15%) or smartwatch (13%). Device ownership was significantly lower in unemployed people and those without secondary education. Device cost and paranoid ideation were barriers to ownership. Technology and mental health services: Most participants (88%) said they would willingly try a mental health app. Symptom monitoring apps were most popular, then appointment reminders and medication reminders. Half the sample would prefer an app alongside face-to-face support; the other half preferred remote support or no other mental health support. Facilitators: Participants thought using a mental health app could increase their understanding of psychosis generally, and of their own symptoms. They valued the flexibility of digital tools in enabling access to support anywhere, anytime. Barriers: Prominent barriers to using mental health apps were forgetting, lack of motivation, security concerns, and concerns it would replace face-to-face care. Overall participants reported no substantial effects of technology on their mental health, although a quarter said using a phone worsened paranoid ideation. A third used technology more when psychotic symptoms were higher, whereas a third used it less. Around half used technology more when experiencing low mood.

conclusionsOur findings suggest rapidly increasing device ownership among people with psychosis, mirroring patterns in the general population. Smartphones appear appropriate for delivering internet-enabled support for psychosis. However, for a sub-group of people with psychosis, the sometimes complex interaction between technology and mental health may act as a barrier to engagement, alongside more prosaic factors such as forgetting.

Indexed as

Cell PhonePsychotic DisordersHumansMental HealthSmartphoneSurveys and QuestionnairesDigital healthPsychosisSchizophreniaSmartphoneSurveyWearable

Identifiers

PMID37803367
PMCPMC10559432

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.