Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42508000›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2026

Structuring Digital Mental Health Care Navigation: Co-Design Nominal Group Technique Study to Develop the MChart Definition and Typology of the Characteristics of Digital Mental Health Care Navigation Tools.

Jane Koerner, Luis Salvador-Carulla, Cindy Woods, Sebastian Rosenberg, MaryAnne Furst, Sue Lukersmith, Hossein Tabatabaei-Jafari, Amir Aryani, MChart Expert Panel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Jane KoernerHealth Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3069-5475
Luis Salvador-CarullaHealth Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5742-9866
Cindy WoodsHealth Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5790-069X
Sebastian RosenbergHealth Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3374-8694
MaryAnne FurstHealth Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1906-2346
Sue LukersmithHealth Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8202-3828
Hossein Tabatabaei-JafariThompson Institute, University of the Sunshine Coast, Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4871-1226
Amir AryaniHealth Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4259-9774
MChart Expert PanelSee Acknowledgements, .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAustralia's mental health care system has been characterized by complexity and fragmentation, as highlighted by numerous reports, commissions, and inquiries. In response, digital mental health care navigation tools have emerged as a promising solution to help individuals locate appropriate mental health services. The rapid proliferation of these tools-without a clear understanding of their definitions and characteristics-risks creating confusion rather than clarity for users. Terms such as "navigation" and "navigators" are often used interchangeably, further complicating the landscape.

objectiveThis study addressed the need for a standardized definition and typology of the characteristics of digital mental health care navigation tools.

methodsThis study was part of the development of a digital mental health care navigation tool for navigators and planners (MChart). It used a co-design approach using expert-based cooperative analysis, which is a nominal group technique to develop a definition and typology of the characteristics of digital mental health care navigation tools. This process was guided by the Technology Readiness Level for Implementation Sciences framework. The co-design process involved two 2-hour sessions with an expert panel comprising 28 participants, including representatives from mental health planning, primary health care, health care financing and delivery, community-managed organizations, clinical settings (psychiatrists, psychologists, and general practitioners), and consumers.

resultsThe expert panel collaboratively developed a consensus definition of digital mental health care navigation tools, outlining their scope and intended targets. Through the co-design process, the panel identified 157 characteristics of digital mental health care navigation tools. These characteristics were organized into 5 primary domains: type, management, content, design, and quality. The definition and typology characteristics provide a structured framework for understanding and evaluating the diverse range of digital mental health care navigation tools currently available.

conclusionsThe co-designed definition and typology offer a foundational step toward reducing confusion in the digital mental health care navigation space. This study supports the development of quality standards that can be used to assess and compare existing and future tools. This framework has the potential to guide developers, end users, and policymakers in creating more effective, user-centered navigation solutions within Australia's mental health care system and internationally.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesPatient NavigationAustraliaDigital HealthHumansco-designdigital healthhealth service planningmental health carenavigationtypology

Identifiers

PMID42508000
PMCPMC13458349

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.