ArticleThe Australian journal of rural health2025
Barriers and Facilitators of Digital Mental Health Use in Regional, Rural, and Remote Australia: A Comparison of Clinician and Consumer Perspectives.
Article in The Australian journal of rural health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Randomized Clinical Trial of the Acceptability and Preliminary Effectiveness of an Online CBT Platform in Diverse Youth.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- "I feel like there's going to have to be catastrophe before I am seen:..and that is going to be devastating": Visibility, recognition, and medical silencing in eating disorders and disordered eating.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionConsumers living in regional, rural, and remote areas of Australia face significant barriers to accessing mental healthcare. Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) are a promising avenue to improve access to mental health treatment in these areas, but uptake has yet to reach its full potential.
objectiveThis study evaluated the perceived barriers and facilitators of engagement with DMHIs for clinicians and consumers in regional, rural, and remote Australia. METHODS, DESIGN, AND
participantsWe surveyed consumers (n = 896) and clinicians (n = 104) using cross-sectional surveys to examine perceived barriers and facilitators of DMHI use.
settingThis study was conducted within the context of an established digital mental health service, THIS WAY UP.
main outcome measuresSurvey responses were mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model, and quantitative analyses of response frequencies partitioned the influence of each factor on engagement with DMHIs.
resultsClinicians and consumers familiar with DMHIs reported barriers that spanned capability, opportunity, and motivation domains. Lack of consumer motivation was the most frequent barrier perceived by clinicians (51%) and reported by consumers (27%). Consumers valued many accessibility benefits of DMHIs and frequently endorsed the importance of clinicians in facilitating their use of DMHIs by supporting knowledge and motivation.
conclusionsDMHIs have the potential to alleviate service-related barriers to mental healthcare in regional/remote areas, and successful implementation must consider both clinician and consumer perspectives. Our findings underscore several capability, opportunity, and motivational targets for improving consumer and clinician engagement with DMHI in these areas.
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.