RESUMO
Individuals with schizophrenia often demonstrate poor engagement in treatment and challenges with illness self-management. App4independence (A4i) is a digital health platform that was developed with the purpose of addressing the aforementioned challenges. While digital interventions can support patient care, there is a paucity of research on implementing such interventions in clinical settings. To describe the contextual factors that impacted the implementation of and engagement with A4i across three different clinical implementation sites, a descriptive approach, guided by implementation science frameworks, was employed to understand how people, culture, process, and technology impacted the implementation of A4i. Descriptive statistics were used to present user engagement data across each site implementation. Additionally, the lessons learned from each implementation were described narratively. Overall, 53 patients were onboarded to A4i in Context 1, 8 in Context 2, and 65 within Context 3, with retention rates over 90 days of 100%, 100%, and 96%, respectively. The adoption, engagement, and sustained use of the A4i platform varied across each implementation site and were affected by implementation strategies within the sociotechnical domains of people, culture, process, and technology. Despite differences in implementation processes, engagement with A4i remained consistently high. Customized educational materials, digital navigators, and technical support served as facilitators in the adoption of A4i.
Digital health tools like, App4Indepence (A4i), have the potential to support people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders in self-managing and engaging in their care. Although it is known that digital tools can support mental health care, there is a lack of knowledge on how best to implement these digital tools into clinical care. Given this, the following brief report aims to describe factors that affected the implementation of A4i across three different clinical settings. An implementation science framework was used to compare and contrast the implementation of A4i across the various clinical settings. Specifically, the impact of people, culture, process, and technology on each implementation was described. Overall, it was found that there were differing rates of engagement with the A4i app across each clinical setting. Higher engagement was found when peer support workers or clinicians were involved in the use of A4i with their clients. In each setting, having a clear implementation plan, creating personalized educational materials, and providing timely and appropriate technical support, facilitated the implementation of the A4i digital platform.
Assuntos
Transtornos Psicóticos , Autogestão , Humanos , Transtornos Psicóticos/terapiaRESUMO
Digital mental health tools have the potential to support people affected by mental health conditions. A pan-Canadian survey was conducted to understand the current and future digital health needs. The results show that Canadians prioritized tools that support them in navigating the physical and digital mental healthcare systems and that are integrated into their care.
Assuntos
Transtornos Mentais , Saúde Mental , Canadá , Humanos , Transtornos Mentais/terapia , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
Objectives: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population mental health has highlighted the potential for digital mental health to support the needs of those requiring care. This study sought to understand the digital mental health experiences and priorities of Canadians affected by mental health conditions (i.e. seekers, patients, and care partners). Methods: A national cross-sectional electronic survey of Canadians was administered through a market research firm's survey panel. Seekers, patients, and care partners were asked about their digital mental health experiences (e.g. uptake, barriers to access) and priorities. Survey responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Overall, 1003 participants completed the survey. 70.2% of participants routinely use digital mental health supports to support themselves or those they care for; however, only 28.6% of participants are satisfied with the available digital mental health supports. Most participants (73.3%) have encountered some barriers when accessing digital mental health supports. Awareness of digital mental health supports was a top barrier identified by participants. The top digital mental health priorities consisted of digital mental health curation, navigation, and a digital mental health passport. Conclusions: Most participants use digital mental health supports for themselves or others, however, many are unaware of digital mental health supports available. Efforts to improve navigating access to digital and in-person mental health services are seen as a top priority, highlighting the need to enable seekers, patients, and care partners to find the appropriate support and make decisions on how to best improve their mental health.
RESUMO
Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted various barriers to health and the necessity of having access to digital health services. The technology industry can support addressing health barriers, promoting health equity and partnering with organizations to ensure access to digital health services for underserviced communities. The main objective of this study was to 1) identify what initiatives have been developed within the technology industry to address digital health equity; and to 2) determine whether these initiatives have been effective. Methods: A rapid review and a grey literature scan were conducted. The academic searches were performed using four databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL and PsychInfo. Two reviewers screened the articles for inclusion criteria. The grey literature scan was performed through Google and Million Short. Searches of technology industry initiatives were completed through scanning technology companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the Toronto Stock Exchange and iShares Expanded Tech Sector - Exchange Traded Fund. Results: Within the technology industry, 39 companies had relevant initiatives. These were identified as having one or more of the following: 1) having health-related collaborations with other companies, 2) promoting access to technology infrastructure and 3) delivering programs that supported notable inequities within the social determinants of health. Limited data are available on the effectiveness of these initiatives in reducing health inequities. Conclusions: As technology in the delivery of health services continues to evolve, health equity initiatives must be supported through innovative strategies. Partnering with the technology industry may be one way of addressing these health equity challenges.