Development of a Resource Guide to Support the Engagement of Mental Health Providers and Patients With Digital Health Tools: Multimethod Study (Preprint)

Abstract

BACKGROUND As mental illness continues to affect one in five individuals, and the need for support has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, the promise of digital mental health tools remains largely unrealized due to lack of uptake by patients and providers. OBJECTIVE The specific objective of this project is to develop a web-based resource to support the engagement of mental health providers and patients in the use of digital mental health tools. METHODS The web-based resource was developed using a multi-method approach. We conducted: 1) an environmental scan and engagement of experts in the field; 2) an academic literature review; 3) a grey literature review; and 4) a stakeholder engagement workshop. RESULTS We developed a resource, which is now available publicly online, to support patients' and providers' engagement in the usage of digital mental health tools. Based on a literature review, environmental scan with 27 experts and an engagement workshop with 15 stakeholders, 25 resources were identified and included in the resource guide. The contents of the resource guide are directed at mental health care providers, administrators and patients/clients (inclusive of families/caregivers). CONCLUSIONS The resource guide is now publicly available online for free. Future work should explore how this document can be integrated into clinical care delivery and pathways.

A mixed methods analysis of existing assessment and evaluation tools (AETs) for mental health applications

“…Of the 13 selected AETs, six (46%) were developed in Canada ( 21 , 22 , 29–32 ), five (38%) in the United States ( 33–37 ), one (8%) in England ( 15 ) and one (8%) in New Zealand ( 38 ). Five (38%) AETs were developed by non-profit organizations ( 22 , 34–36 , 38 ), two (15%) by national professional organizations ( 33 , 37 ), one by a local health service ( 29 ), another by a national health service ( 15 ), two by hospitals ( 31 , 32 ), one by a national non-profit organization created by the government ( 30 ), and one by an individual as a Ph.D. ( 21 ) project. Three (23%) tools focused on general health Apps with dedicated sections on mental health ( 15 , 36 , 38 ), and the rest (77%) of the tools focused solely on MH Apps ( 21 , 22 , 29–35 , 37 ).…”

“…Three tools used the term frameworks ( 22 , 30 , 37 ), one used app directory ( 29 ), one used the term app library ( 31 ), and one used app rating index ( 21 ). The rest (54%) ( 15 , 32–36 , 38 ) were online libraries (i.e., websites) without a specific term to represent the AET.…”

“…These AETs used a variety of methods to assess app quality. Four (31%) AETs used rating scales ( 21 , 34–36 ), one (8%) used a rating key ( 33 ), and another provided a questionnaire ( 32 ) to assess MH Apps. The rest (54%) of the tools used pre-selected criteria from which to assess app quality ( 15 , 22 , 29–31 , 38 ).…”

“…We were able to find details on how these tools were developed (methodology) for only six (46%) of the AETs ( 21 , 22 , 30 , 32 , 36 , 37 ). Limited information on stakeholder engagement in these AETs was available, with a noticeable absence of app distributors, app developers, and health funders.…”

“…1 Six AETs (46%) are a part of websites ( 15 , 33–36 , 38 ) that provide online guidance on applications using various selection criteria. No information on implementation was available for the remaining five (38%) AETs ( 21 , 22 , 29 , 31 , 32 ). Apart from the NHS App Library ( 15 ), none of these tools have been adopted by a health system at a national level.…”