RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Remote measurement technology (RMT) has the potential to address current research and clinical challenges of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and its co-occurring mental health problems. Despite research using RMT already being successfully applied to other populations, adherence and attrition are potential obstacles when applying RMT to a disorder such as ADHD. Hypothetical views and attitudes toward using RMT in a population with ADHD have previously been explored; however, to our knowledge, there is no previous research that has used qualitative methods to understand the barriers to and facilitators of using RMT in individuals with ADHD following participation in a remote monitoring period. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the barriers to and facilitators of using RMT in individuals with ADHD compared with a group of people who did not have a diagnosis of ADHD. We also aimed to explore participants' views on using RMT for 1 or 2 years in future studies. METHODS: In total, 20 individuals with ADHD and 20 individuals without ADHD were followed up for 10 weeks using RMT that involved active (questionnaires and cognitive tasks) and passive (smartphone sensors and wearable devices) monitoring; 10 adolescents and adults with ADHD and 12 individuals in a comparison group completed semistructured qualitative interviews at the end of the study period. The interviews focused on potential barriers to and facilitators of using RMT in adults with ADHD. A framework methodology was used to explore the data qualitatively. RESULTS: Barriers to and facilitators of using RMT were categorized as health-related, user-related, and technology-related factors across both participant groups. When comparing themes that emerged across the participant groups, both individuals with and without ADHD experienced similar barriers and facilitators in using RMT. The participants agreed that RMT can provide useful objective data. However, slight differences between the participant groups were identified as barriers to RMT across all major themes. Individuals with ADHD described the impact that their ADHD symptoms had on participating (health-related theme), commented on the perceived cost of completing the cognitive tasks (user-related theme), and described more technical challenges (technology-related theme) than individuals without ADHD. Hypothetical views on future studies using RMT in individuals with ADHD for 1 or 2 years were positive. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with ADHD agreed that RMT, which uses repeated measurements with ongoing active and passive monitoring, can provide useful objective data. Although themes overlapped with previous research on barriers to and facilitators of engagement with RMT (eg, depression and epilepsy) and with a comparison group, there are unique considerations for people with ADHD, for example, understanding the impact that ADHD symptoms may have on engaging with RMT. Researchers need to continue working with people with ADHD to develop future RMT studies for longer periods.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Sharing patient data can help drive scientific advances and improve patient care, but service users are concerned about how their data are used. When the National Health Service proposes to scrape general practitioner records, it is very important that we understand these concerns in some depth. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate views of mental health service users on acceptable data sharing to provide clear recommendations for future data sharing systems. METHODS: A total of 4 focus groups with 4 member-checking groups were conducted via the internet between October 2020 and March 2021, with a total of 22 service users in the United Kingdom. Thematic analysis was used to identify the themes. RESULTS: Six main themes, with several subthemes were identified, such as the purpose of data sharing-for profit, public good, and continuation of care; discrimination through the misattribution of physical symptoms to mental health conditions (ie, diagnostic overshadowing) alongside the discrimination of individuals or groups within society (ie, institutional discrimination); safeguarding data by preserving anonymity and confidentiality, strengthening security measures, and holding organizations accountable; data accuracy and informed consent-increasing transparency about data use and choice; and incorporating service user involvement in system governance to provide insight and increase security. CONCLUSIONS: This study extends the limited research on the views and concerns of mental health service users regarding acceptable data sharing. If adopted, the recommendations should improve the confidence of service users in sharing their data. The five recommendations include screening to ensure that data sharing benefits the public, providing service users with information about how their data are shared and what for, highlighting the existing safeguarding procedures, incorporating service user involvement, and developing tailored training for health care professionals to address issues of diagnostic overshadowing and inaccurate health records. Adopting such systems would aid in data sharing for legitimate interests that will benefit patients and the National Health Service.