Background Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs), which deliver mental health support via technologies such as mobile apps, can increase access to mental health support, and many studies have demonstrated their effectiveness in improving symptoms. However, user engagement varies, with regard to a user’s uptake and sustained interactions with these interventions. Objective This systematic review aims to identify common barriers and facilitators that influence user engagement with DMHIs. Methods A systematic search was conducted in the SCOPUS, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Empirical studies that report qualitative and/or quantitative data were included. Results A total of 208 articles met the inclusion criteria. The included articles used a variety of methodologies, including interviews, surveys, focus groups, workshops, field studies, and analysis of user reviews. Factors extracted for coding were related to the end user, the program or content offered by the intervention, and the technology and implementation environment. Common barriers included severe mental health issues that hampered engagement, technical issues, and a lack of personalization. Common facilitators were social connectedness facilitated by the intervention, increased insight into health, and a feeling of being in control of one’s own health. Conclusions Although previous research suggests that DMHIs can be useful in supporting mental health, contextual factors are important determinants of whether users actually engage with these interventions. The factors identified in this review can provide guidance when evaluating DMHIs to help explain and understand user engagement and can inform the design and development of new digital interventions.

Background Accompanying the rising rates of reported mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a reported increase in the use of digital technologies to manage health generally, and mental health more specifically. Objective The objective of this study was to systematically examine whether there was a COVID-19 pandemic–related increase in the self-reported use of digital mental health tools and other technologies to manage mental health. Methods We analyzed results from a survey of 5907 individuals in the United States using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk); the survey was administered during 4 week-long periods in 2020 and survey respondents were from all 50 states and Washington DC. The first set of analyses employed two different logistic regression models to estimate the likelihood of having symptoms indicative of clinical depression and anxiety, respectively, as a function of the rate of COVID-19 cases per 10 people and survey time point. The second set employed seven different logistic regression models to estimate the likelihood of using seven different types of digital mental health tools and other technologies to manage one’s mental health, as a function of symptoms indicative of clinical depression and anxiety, rate of COVID-19 cases per 10 people, and survey time point. These models also examined potential interactions between symptoms of clinical depression and anxiety, respectively, and rate of COVID-19 cases. All models controlled for respondent sociodemographic characteristics and state fixed effects. Results Higher COVID-19 case rates were associated with a significantly greater likelihood of reporting symptoms of depression (odds ratio [OR] 2.06, 95% CI 1.27-3.35), but not anxiety (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.77-1.88). Survey time point, a proxy for time, was associated with a greater likelihood of reporting clinically meaningful symptoms of depression and anxiety (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.12-1.27 and OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.19, respectively). Reported symptoms of depression and anxiety were associated with a greater likelihood of using each type of technology. Higher COVID-19 case rates were associated with a significantly greater likelihood of using mental health forums, websites, or apps (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.49-4.88), and other health forums, websites, or apps (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.55-4.34). Time was associated with increased odds of reported use of mental health forums, websites, or apps (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.11-1.30), phone-based or text-based crisis lines (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.31), and online, computer, or console gaming/video gaming (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.19). Interactions between COVID-19 case rate and mental health symptoms were not significantly associated with any of the technology types. Conclusions Findings suggested increased use of digital mental health tools and other technologies over time during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, additional effort is urgently needed to consider the quality of these products, either by ensuring users have access to evidence-based and evidence-informed technologies and/or by providing them with the skills to make informed decisions around their potential efficacy.

While collaboration is being increasingly recognized in the biomedical informatics community as essential to healthcare delivery, collaboration is often implicitly discussed or intertwined with other similar concepts. In order to evaluate how HIT affects collaboration and how we can build HIT to effectively support collaboration, we need more studies that explicitly focus on collaborative issues.

No abstract

The research community on the study and design of systems for personal informatics has grown over the past decade. To take stock of what the topics the field has studied and methods the field has used, we map and label 523 publications from ACM's library, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed. We surface that the literature has focused on studying and designing for health and wellness domains, an emphasis on understanding and overcoming barriers to data collection and reflection, and progressively fewer contributions involving artifacts being made. Our mapping review suggests directions future research could explore, such as identifying and resolving barriers to tracking stages beyond collection and reflection, engaging more with domain experts, and further discussing the privacy and ethical concerns around tracked data.