Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39102692›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

Uptake of a self-guided digital treatment for depression and anxiety: A qualitative study exploring patient perspectives and decision-making.

Alana Fisher, Sylvia Eugene Dit Rochesson, Madelyne A Bisby, Amelia J Scott, Milena Gandy, Andreea Heriseanu, Nick Titov, Blake Dear

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Uptake of a self-guided digital treatment for depression and anxiety: A qualitative study exploring patient perspectives and decision-making.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    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

8 authors.

Alana FisherThe eCentreClinic, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6027-659X
Sylvia Eugene Dit RochessonThe eCentreClinic, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Madelyne A BisbyThe eCentreClinic, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Amelia J ScottThe eCentreClinic, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Milena GandyThe eCentreClinic, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Andreea HeriseanuThe eCentreClinic, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nick TitovThe eCentreClinic, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Blake DearThe eCentreClinic, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

Macquarie University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the demonstrated efficacy and potential scalability of self-guided digital treatments for common mental health conditions, there is substantial variability in their uptake and engagement. This study explored the decision-making processes, influences and support needs of people taking up a self-guided digital treatment for anxiety and/or depression.

methodsAustralian-based adults (n = 20) were purposively sampled from a trial of self-guided digital mental health treatment. One-to-one, semistructured interviews were conducted, based on the Ottawa Decision-Support Framework. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using framework methods. Baseline sociodemographic, clinical and decision-making characteristics were also collected.

resultsAnalyses yielded four themes. Theme 1 captured participants' openness to try self-guided digital treatment, despite limited deliberation on potential downsides or alternative options. Theme 2 highlighted that immediacy and ease of access were major drivers of uptake, which participants contrasted with gaps in access and continuity of care in face-to-face services, especially rurally. Theme 3 centred on participants as the main agents in their decision-making, with family and health professional attitudes also reportedly influencing decision-making. Theme 4 revealed participants' primary motivations for deciding to take up treatment (e.g., the potential to increase insight and coping skills), while also acknowledging that pre-existing characteristics (e.g., health and digital literacy, insight) determined participants' personal suitability for self-guided digital treatment.

conclusionFindings help to elucidate the decision-making influences and processes amongst people who started a self-guided treatment for depression and anxiety. Additional information and decision support resources appear warranted, which may also improve the accessibility of self-guided treatments. PUBLIC OR PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients were interviewed about their views and experiences of decision-making about accessing and taking up treatment. As such, patient contribution to the research was as study participants.

Indexed as

AnxietyDecision MakingDepressionQualitative ResearchAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedSelf Careanxietydecision‐makingdepressiondigital treatmentiCBTpatient perspectivesqualitative

Identifiers

PMID39102692
PMCPMC10799218

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.