Healthcare providers perspectives on digital, self-guided mental health programs for LGBTQIA+ individuals: A cross-sectional online survey.

Digital, self-guided mental health programs are a promising avenue for mental health support for LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, Queer, intersex, asexual plus additional sexuality, gender, and romantic identities) people - however, healthcare providers (HCPs) perspectives on programs are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to explore these perspectives. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed across Australia, with a final sample of 540 HCPs from a range of disciplines. Most respondents (419, 81.2 %), reported that digital, self-guided mental health programs would be useful, but 74.5 % (n = 380) also reported that they had concerns. Thematic analysis of open-text responses showed that HCPs believe programs may help overcome access barriers and could be useful as part of a wider care journey. Others were concerned about patient safety, and whether programs could be appropriately tailored to LGBTQIA+ experiences. Content analysis of open-text responses showed affirming language and imagery, content on LGBTQIA+ people's unique challenges, wider health information, and connections to community were important to include in programs. HCPs advocated for programs that offered broad and sub-population specific information. These findings show that HCPs are enthusiastic about digital, self-guided mental health programs, but care should be taken to address key concerns to facilitate future implementation.

Digital mental health interventions: A narrative review of what is important from the perspective of LGBTQIA+ people.

OBJECTIVES: Digital mental health interventions are a promising therapeutic modality to provide psychological support to LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, Queer, intersex, asexual, plus other gender, sexual, and romantic minority identities) people. The aim of this narrative review is to explore how the LGBTQIA+ community has been engaged in the design of digital mental health interventions, how content has been tailored to the LGBTQIA+ community, and features identified as important by LGBTQIA+ participants. METHODS: A total of 33 studies were included in this review from a larger yield of 1933 identified from systematic searches of five databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHAL, and Medline). Data were analyzed narratively and using content analysis. RESULTS: Only half of the studies reported engaging the LGBTQIA+ community in intervention designs. Interventions have been tailored in a variety of ways to support LGBTQIA+ individuals-such as through affirming imagery, recruitment through LGBTQIA+ networks, and designing content to focus specifically on LGBTQIA+ issues. A range of features were identified as important for participants, namely how content was tailored to LGBTQIA+ experiences, providing connection to community, and links to other relevant LGBTQIA+ resources. While not a primary aim, results also showed that a wide range of digital modalities can significantly improve a range of mental health problems. CONCLUSION: Digital interventions are an acceptable and effective form of therapeutic intervention, but future research needs to focus on meaningful engagement of community members to inform design and implementation.