Factors Influencing Community Participation in Internet Interventions Compared With Research Trials: Observational Study in a Nationally Representative Adult Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Digital mental health (DMH) programs can be effective in treating and preventing mental health problems. However, community engagement with these programs can be poor. Understanding the barriers and enablers of DMH program use may assist in identifying ways to increase the uptake of these programs, which have the potential to provide broad-scale prevention and treatment in the community. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to identify and compare factors that may influence participation in DMH programs in practice and research trials, identify any respondent characteristics that are associated with these factors, and assess the relationship between intentions to use DMH programs and actual uptake. METHODS: Australian adults aged ≥18 years were recruited from market research panels to participate in the study. The sample was representative of the Australian adult population based on age, gender, and location. Participants completed a cross-sectional web-based survey assessing demographic characteristics, mental health symptom measures, attitudes and use of DMH programs in practice and in research studies, and the factors influencing their use in both settings. RESULTS: Across both research and practice, trust in the organization delivering the service or trial was the top-ranked factor influencing participation, followed by anonymity or privacy and adequate information. There was little variation in rankings across demographic groups, including intentions to use DMH programs or mental health status. Intentions to use DMH programs were a strong predictor of both current (odds ratio 2.50, 99% CI 1.41-4.43; P<.001) and past (odds ratio 2.98, 99% CI 1.71-5.19; P<.001) use behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to increase the uptake of DMH programs or participation in research trials should focus on clearly communicating the following to users: the legitimacy of the organization delivering the program, security and use of participant data, and effectiveness of DMH programs.

Systematic review of quantitative studies assessing the relationship between environment and mental health in rural areas.

OBJECTIVE: Physical and natural environments might strongly influence mental health and well-being. Many studies have examined this relationship in urban environments, with fewer focused on rural settings. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise quantitative evidence for the relationship between environmental factors (drought, climate and extreme weather events, land use/environmental degradation, green space/vegetation, engagement in natural resource management activities) and mental health or well-being in rural areas. DESIGN: Following a systematic search of three databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Web of Science), 4368 articles were identified, of which 28 met eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review. RESULTS: Poorer mental health and well-being was typically found to have an association with extreme climate or weather events and environmental degradation. The observed relationships were largely assessed at area-wide or community levels. CONCLUSIONS: Studies examining the relationship between the environmental condition of land and mental health at an individual level, particularly within farms, are lacking. Addressing this gap in research requires interdisciplinary expertise and diverse methodology. Few studies examined the effects of natural resource management practices/principles or biodiversity on mental health. While there is evidence that extreme climate or weather events have a negative impact on mental health in rural areas, there remain considerable gaps in our knowledge of how rural environments influence mental health and well-being.

The Literacy of Suicide Scale.

Background: Until recently, little was known about the public's knowledge of suicide or its association with help-seeking. Aims: In this article we describe the development, validation, and application of the Literacy of Suicide Scale (LOSS). Method: A total of 658 people participated in the development of the LOSS, while 191 participated in a validation study. Item response theory was used to identify LOSS items. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to ascertain the breadth of use and application of the LOSS. Results: Overall, 26 items were selected for the final version of the LOSS, with 12 items identified for a short form of the scale. The LOSS has been included in 25 studies across nine countries with general community, student, and clinical populations. The LOSS has demonstrated change in response to psychoeducation interventions and is associated with suicide stigma and help-seeking in select studies. Limitations: Further validation of the LOSS in clinical populations is needed. Conclusion: The LOSS is a comprehensive measure of suicide literacy that may be used to identify knowledge gaps, inform awareness-raising activities, and assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve suicide literacy. The LOSS has been used in a broad range of settings, demonstrating application to diverse populations and cultural contexts.