BackgroundThis paper presents the protocol for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)–funded University of Washington’s ALACRITY (Advanced Laboratories for Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness) Center (UWAC), which uses human-centered design (HCD) methods to improve the implementation of evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPIs). We propose that usability—the degree to which interventions and implementation strategies can be used with ease, efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction—is a fundamental, yet poorly understood determinant of implementation.ObjectiveWe present a novel Discover, Design/Build, and Test (DDBT) framework to study usability as an implementation determinant. DDBT will be applied across Center projects to develop scalable and efficient implementation strategies (eg, training tools), modify existing EBPIs to enhance usability, and create usable and nonburdensome decision support tools for quality delivery of EBPIs.MethodsStakeholder participants will be implementation practitioners/intermediaries, mental health clinicians, and patients with mental illness in nonspecialty mental health settings in underresourced communities. Three preplanned projects and 12 pilot studies will employ the DDBT model to (1) identify usability challenges in implementing EBPIs in underresourced settings; (2) iteratively design solutions to overcome these challenges; and (3) compare the solution to the original version of the EPBI or implementation strategy on usability, quality of care, and patient-reported outcomes. The final products from the center will be a streamlined modification and redesign model that will improve the usability of EBPIs and implementation strategies (eg, tools to support EBPI education and decision making); a matrix of modification targets (ie, usability issues) that are both common and unique to EBPIs, strategies, settings, and patient populations; and a compilation of redesign strategies and the relative effectiveness of the redesigned solution compared to the original EBPI or strategy.ResultsThe UWAC received institutional review board approval for the three separate studies in March 2018 and was funded in May 2018.ConclusionsThe outcomes from this center will inform the implementation of EBPIs by identifying cross-cutting features of EBPIs and implementation strategies that influence the use and acceptability of these interventions, actively involving stakeholder clinicians and implementation practitioners in the design of the EBPI modification or implementation strategy solution and identifying the impact of HCD-informed modifications and solutions on intervention effectiveness and quality.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03515226 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03515226), NCT03514394 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03514394), and NCT03516513 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03516513).International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/14990

No abstract

No abstract

Background COVID-19 has created serious mental health consequences for essential workers or people who have become unemployed as a result of the pandemic. Digital mental health tools have the potential to address this problem in a timely and efficient manner. Objective The purpose of this study was to document the extent of digital mental health tool (DMHT) use by essential workers and those unemployed due to COVID-19, including asking participants to rate the usability and user burden of the DMHT they used most to cope. We also explored which aspects and features of DMHTs were seen as necessary for managing stress during a pandemic by having participants design their own ideal DMHT. Methods A total of 2000 people were recruited from an online research community (Prolific) to complete a one-time survey about mental health symptoms, DMHT use, and preferred digital mental health features. Results The final sample included 1987 US residents that identified as either an essential worker or someone who was unemployed due to COVID-19. Almost three-quarters of the sample (1479/1987, 74.8%) reported clinically significant emotional distress. Only 14.2% (277/1957) of the sample used a DMHT to cope with stress associated with COVID-19. Of those who used DMHTs to cope with COVID-19, meditation apps were the most common (119/261, 45.6%). Usability was broadly in the acceptable range, although participants unemployed due to COVID-19 were less likely to report user burden with DMHTs than essential workers (t198.1=–3.89, P<.001). Individuals with emotional distress reported higher financial burden for their DMHT than nondistressed individuals (t69.0=–3.21, P=.01). When the sample was provided the option to build their own DMHT, the most desired features were a combination of mindfulness/meditation (1271/1987, 64.0%), information or education (1254/1987, 63.1%), distraction tools (1170/1987, 58.9%), symptom tracking for mood and sleep (1160/1987, 58.4%), link to mental health resources (1140/1987, 57.4%), and positive psychology (1131/1986, 56.9%). Subgroups by employment, distress, and previous DMHT use status had varied preferences. Of those who did not use a DMHT to cope with COVID-19, most indicated that they did not consider looking for such a tool to help with coping (1179/1710, 68.9%). Conclusions Despite the potential need for DMHTs, this study found that the use of such tools remains similar to prepandemic levels. This study also found that regardless of the level of distress or even past experience using an app to cope with COVID-19, it is possible to develop a COVID-19 coping app that would appeal to a majority of essential workers and unemployed persons.

Background People often prefer evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPIs) for mental health care; however, these interventions frequently remain unavailable to people in nonspecialty or integrated settings, such as primary care and schools. Previous research has suggested that usability, a concept from human-centered design, could support an understanding of the barriers to and facilitators of the successful adoption of EBPIs and support the redesign of EBPIs and implementation strategies. Objective This study aimed to identify and categorize usability issues in EBPIs and their implementation strategies. Methods We adapted a usability issue analysis and reporting format from a human-centered design. A total of 13 projects supported by the National Institute of Mental Health—funded Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness Center at the University of Washington used this format to describe usability issues for EBPIs and implementation strategies with which they were working. Center researchers used iterative affinity diagramming and coding processes to identify usability issue categories. On the basis of these categories and the underlying issues, we propose heuristics for the design or redesign of EBPIs and implementation strategies. Results The 13 projects reported a total of 90 usability issues, which we categorized into 12 categories, including complex and/or cognitively overwhelming, required time exceeding available time, incompatibility with interventionist preference or practice, incompatibility with existing workflow, insufficient customization to clients/recipients, intervention buy-in (value), interventionist buy-in (trust), overreliance on technology, requires unavailable infrastructure, inadequate scaffolding for client/recipient, inadequate training and scaffolding for interventionists, and lack of support for necessary communication. These issues range from minor inconveniences that affect a few interventionists or recipients to severe issues that prevent all interventionists or recipients in a setting from completing part or all of the intervention. We propose 12 corresponding heuristics to guide EBPIs and implementation strategy designers in preventing and addressing these usability issues. Conclusions Usability issues were prevalent in the studied EBPIs and implementation strategies. We recommend using the lens of usability evaluation to understand and address barriers to the effective use and reach of EBPIs and implementation strategies. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/14990