Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40029626›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2025

Understanding Appropriation of Digital Self-Monitoring Tools in Mental Health Care: Qualitative Analysis.

Lena de Thurah, Glenn Kiekens, Jeroen Weermeijer, Lotte Uyttebroek, Martien Wampers, Rafaël Bonnier, Inez Myin-Germeys

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Lena de ThurahDepartment of Neurosciences, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 ON5B, bus 1029, Leuven, 3000, Belgium, 32 16 32 14 57.ORCID 0000-0001-6102-0767
Glenn KiekensDepartment of Neurosciences, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 ON5B, bus 1029, Leuven, 3000, Belgium, 32 16 32 14 57.ORCID 0000-0001-8747-3385
Jeroen WeermeijerDepartment of Neurosciences, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 ON5B, bus 1029, Leuven, 3000, Belgium, 32 16 32 14 57.ORCID 0000-0002-6288-795X
Lotte UyttebroekDepartment of Neurosciences, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 ON5B, bus 1029, Leuven, 3000, Belgium, 32 16 32 14 57.ORCID 0000-0002-6510-3196
Martien WampersDepartment of Neurosciences, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 ON5B, bus 1029, Leuven, 3000, Belgium, 32 16 32 14 57.ORCID 0009-0005-2327-5124
Rafaël BonnierDepartment of Neurosciences, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 ON5B, bus 1029, Leuven, 3000, Belgium, 32 16 32 14 57.ORCID 0000-0003-1143-0711
Inez Myin-GermeysDepartment of Neurosciences, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49 ON5B, bus 1029, Leuven, 3000, Belgium, 32 16 32 14 57.ORCID 0000-0002-3731-4930

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Digital self-monitoring tools, such as the experience sampling method (ESM), enable individuals to collect detailed information about their mental health and daily life context and may help guide and support person-centered mental health care. However, similar to many digital interventions, the ESM struggles to move from research to clinical integration. To guide the implementation of self-monitoring tools in mental health care, it is important to understand why and how clinicians and clients adopted, adapted, and incorporated these tools in practice. Objective: Therefore, this study examined how clinicians and clients within a psychiatric center appropriated an ESM-based self-monitoring tool within their therapy. Methods: Twelve clinicians and 24 clients participated in the piloting of the ESM tool, IMPROVE. After utilizing the tool, 7 clinicians and 11 clients took part in semistructured interviews. A thematic framework analysis was performed focusing on participants' prior knowledge and expectations, actual use in practice, and potential future use of ESM tools. Results: Many participants experienced that the ESM tool provided useful information about clients' mental health, especially when clinicians and clients engaged in collaborative data interpretation. However, clinicians experienced several mismatches between system usability and their technical competencies, and many clients found it difficult to comply with the self-assessments. Importantly, most participants wanted to use digital self-monitoring tools in the future. Conclusions: Clinicians' and clients' choice to adopt and integrate self-monitoring tools in their practice seems to depend upon the perceived balance between the added benefits and the effort required to achieve them. Enhancing user support or redesigning ESM tools to reduce workload and data burden could help overcome implementation barriers. Future research should involve end users in the development of ESM self-monitoring tools for mental health care and further investigate the perspectives of nonadopters.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesSelf CareAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Researchacceptanceadoptionattitudedigital healthdigital self-monitoringexperienceexperience sampling methodimplementationinterviewmental healthmental health careopinionperceptionperspectiveself-monitoringtechnology appropriationthematicusability

Identifiers

PMID40029626
PMCPMC11892539

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.