Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40138606›Full record

ReviewPLOS digital health2025

Classifying the features of digital mental health interventions to inform the development of a patient decision aid.

Gemma Bradley, Lucia Rehackova, Kayleigh Devereaux, Tor Alexander Bruce, Victoria Nunn, Liam Gilfellon, Scott Burrows, Alisdair Cameron, Rose Watson, Katie Rumney and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

Gemma BradleyDepartment of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0031-964X
Lucia RehackovaDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, United Kingdom.
Kayleigh DevereauxPsychological Wellbeing Practitioner, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Tor Alexander BruceDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9997-9786
Victoria NunnPatient and Public Involvement Contributor, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Liam GilfellonEveryturn Mental Health, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Scott BurrowsPatient and Public Involvement Contributor, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Alisdair CameronRecovery College Collective, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Rose WatsonStrathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Katie RumneyPatient and Public Involvement Contributor, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Darren FlynnDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) are a potential scalable solution to improve access to psychological support and therapies. DMHIs vary in terms of their features such as delivery systems (Websites or Apps) and function (information, monitoring, decision support or therapy) that are sensitive to the needs and preferences of users. A decision aid is warranted to empower people to make an informed preference-based choice of DMHIs. We conducted a review of features of DMHIs to embed within a patient decision aid to support shared decision-making. DMHIs, with evidence of availability in the United Kingdom (UK) at the time of the review, were identified from interactive meetings with a multi-disciplinary steering group, an online survey and interviews with adults with lived experience of using DMHIs in the UK. Eligible DMHIs targeted users age ≥16 years with a mental health condition(s), delivered through a digital system. A previous classification system for DMHIs was extended to eight dimensions (Target population; System; Function; Time; Facilitation; Duration and Intensity; and Research Evidence) to guide data extraction and synthesis of findings. Twenty four DMHIs were included in the review. More than half (n = 13, 54%) targeted people living with low mood, anxiety or depression and were primarily delivered via systems such as Apps or websites (or both). Most DMHIs offered one-way transmission of information (n = 21, 88%). Ten (42%) also had two-way communication (e.g., with a healthcare provider). Eighteen (75%) had a function of therapy, with seven and five DMHIs providing monitoring and decision support functions respectively. Most DMHIs were capable of being self-guided (n = 18,75%). Cost and access were primarily free, with some free via referral from the UK NHS or through corporate subscription for employees (n = 11). Eight (33%) DMHIs had evidence of effectiveness from randomised controlled trials. Six statements were developed to elicit user preferences on features of DMHIs: Target Population; Function; Time and Facilitation; System; Cost and Access; and Research Evidence. Preference elicitation statements have been embedded into a prototype decision aid for DMHIs, which will be subjected to acceptability and usability testing.

Identifiers

PMID40138606
PMCPMC11942417

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.