Acceptability of Interventions Delivered Online and Through Mobile Phones for People Who Experience Severe Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review.
Acceptability of Interventions Delivered Online and Through Mobile Phones for People Who Experience Severe Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/jmir.5250
复制
发表时间：
2016-05-31
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Bucci S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Berry N;Lobban F;Emsley R;Bucci S
建议对有严重心理健康问题（SMI）的人进行心理干预。然而，在提供这些服务方面存在障碍，获得服务的机会有限。因此，研究人员开始开发和提供干预措施在线和通过移动的电话。以前的研究表明，以这种形式提供的干预措施是可以接受的人与SMI。然而，需要进行一项全面的系统评价，以深入调查在线和移动的电话提供的干预措施对SMI的可接受性。本系统性综述旨在1）确定假设的可接受性（在提供干预措施之前或不提供干预措施的情况下的可接受性）和实际可接受性在线和移动的电话提供的SMI干预措施的可接受性，2）调查人口统计学和临床特征等因素对可接受性的影响，3）在定性研究中确定共同的参与者观点，确定影响可接受性的因素。我们于2015年4月对PubMed、Embase、PsycINFO、CINAHL和Web of Science数据库进行了系统检索，共获得8017项检索结果，其中49项研究符合完整的纳入标准。如果研究通过参与者观点、模块完成率或干预使用来衡量可接受性，则纳入研究。如果提供干预措施的方法是在线或通过移动的电话，则纳入提供干预措施的研究。在线和移动的电话提供的干预SMI的假设接受度相对较低，而实际接受度往往较高。通过短信提供的干预措施的假设接受度高于电子邮件。大多数评估人口统计学特征对可接受性影响的研究报告称两者之间无显著关系。此外，当参与者获得远程在线支持时，实际可接受性更高。与可接受性相关的常见定性因素包括安全性和隐私问题、吸引人和吸引人的交付形式的重要性、包括同伴支持、计算机和移动的电话知识、技术问题以及对心理状态对干预使用影响的担忧。本系统性综述深入关注在线和移动的电话干预对重度精神障碍的可接受性，并确定了在该领域进一步研究的必要性。基于本综述的结果，我们建议研究人员测量假设和实际的可接受性，以确定在线和移动的电话提供的干预措施的初始看法是否在访问后发生变化。此外，需要更多关注人口统计学和临床特征对可接受性的潜在影响。审查还确定了模块完成率和干预措施使用作为可接受性衡量标准的问题。因此，我们建议研究人员在干预开发和测试的每个阶段获得可接受性的定性报告。进一步的影响和未来的研究机会进行了讨论。
Psychological interventions are recommended for people with severe mental health problems (SMI). However, barriers exist in the provision of these services and access is limited. Therefore, researchers are beginning to develop and deliver interventions online and via mobile phones. Previous research has indicated that interventions delivered in this format are acceptable for people with SMI. However, a comprehensive systematic review is needed to investigate the acceptability of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions for SMI in depth. This systematic review aimed to 1) identify the hypothetical acceptability (acceptability prior to or without the delivery of an intervention) and actual acceptability (acceptability where an intervention was delivered) of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions for SMI, 2) investigate the impact of factors such as demographic and clinical characteristics on acceptability, and 3) identify common participant views in qualitative studies that pinpoint factors influencing acceptability. We conducted a systematic search of the databases PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science in April 2015, which yielded a total of 8017 search results, with 49 studies meeting the full inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they measured acceptability through participant views, module completion rates, or intervention use. Studies delivering interventions were included if the delivery method was online or via mobile phones. The hypothetical acceptability of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions for SMI was relatively low, while actual acceptability tended to be high. Hypothetical acceptability was higher for interventions delivered via text messages than by emails. The majority of studies that assessed the impact of demographic characteristics on acceptability reported no significant relationships between the two. Additionally, actual acceptability was higher when participants were provided remote online support. Common qualitative factors relating to acceptability were safety and privacy concerns, the importance of an engaging and appealing delivery format, the inclusion of peer support, computer and mobile phone literacy, technical issues, and concerns about the impact of psychological state on intervention use. This systematic review provides an in-depth focus on the acceptability of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions for SMI and identified the need for further research in this area. Based on the results from this review, we recommend that researchers measure both hypothetical and actual acceptability to identify whether initial perceptions of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions change after access. In addition, more focus is needed on the potential impact of demographic and clinical characteristics on acceptability. The review also identified issues with module completion rates and intervention use as measures of acceptability. We therefore advise researchers to obtain qualitative reports of acceptability throughout each phase of intervention development and testing. Further implications and opportunities for future research are discussed.