ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Evaluating a Digital Mental Health Tool for Implementation Into New Zealand's Integrated Primary Mental Health and Addictions Service: Usability Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rising global demand for mental health services strains traditional care models, a trend evident in New Zealand, where the Integrated Primary Mental Health and Addictions (IPMHA) model was introduced to improve access to care. While the IPMHA model shows promise, significant service-delivery challenges undermine its scalability. Digital mental health tools (DMHTs) present an opportunity for digital optimization, yet their effectiveness is often limited by low practitioner adoption, a persistent implementation barrier. To ensure these tools are impactful, a user- and context-centered DMHT design approach may help mitigate practitioner adoption barriers and create solutions that can be seamlessly integrated into clinical workflows. Objective: Reporting on the Test stage of the 5-stage Design Thinking framework, this study aimed to evaluate the usability and acceptability of a DMHT software prototype intended to support health improvement practitioners working within New Zealand's IPMHA model. Methods: Five health improvement practitioners from a single primary health organization participated in semistructured usability interviews. Data were collected using a think-aloud protocol during mock clinical sessions and analyzed using affinity diagramming to identify key software feature requirements necessary to promote usability, adoption, and workflow integration. Results: Feedback was obtained for all software minimum viable product features. While practitioners found the clinical support features valuable, 2 system-level requirements were identified as prerequisites for adoption. The first was administrative optimization: the DMHT must reduce workload by automating tasks, such as clinical note entry, data reporting, and psychometric scoring. The second was seamless integration with existing clinic patient management software to eliminate double-handling of data and resolve IT-related workflow frustrations. Conclusions: For a DMHT to be successfully adopted by IPMHA practitioners, it must primarily function to solve existing administrative and workflow inefficiencies. Clinical support features, such as the provision of therapeutic tools and exercises, though helpful, are secondary to the tool's ability to be a practical, efficient, and fully integrated component of daily practice. These findings underscore the value of user- and context-centered design in uncovering the pragmatic, systems-level needs of end users in a complex primary care service-delivery environment.
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.