Cited by 34Mental Health and Patient InvolvementPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Momentum: A smartphone application to support shared decision making for people using mental health services.

Korsbek, Lisa, Tønder, Esben Sandvik·2016·Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the pilot study was to examine the use of a smartphone application as a modern decision aid to support shared decision making in mental health. METHOD: 78 people using mental health services and 116 of their providers participated in a 4-month pilot study. At the end of the intervention, we conducted 3 focus group interviews with 12 multidisciplinary staff members, 1 focus group interview with doctors, and 7 individual interviews with consumers. Each interview was recorded and systematically reviewed to identify common themes and both similar and different traits between respondents through a process of induction. RESULTS: Consumers and providers found the application a useful tool to support people in recovery in providing an overview and setting an agenda. However, the pilot study found more technological obstacles to its use. Some results indicate an obstacle perhaps relating to the power asymmetry between people using mental health services and staff. Contrary to our hypothesis that peer support would be crucial, the use of the application was most widespread when it was presented to consumers by providers who found it was a useful tool. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results indicate the relevance of using modern technology to support shared decision making (SDM) and the recovery model, though raise the question of how the actual use in the study is to be understood. The study thereby points to a need of further research into the understanding of the central consumer-provider relationship in SDM and in how decision aids are presented. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/prj0000173

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Korsbek, L., & Tønder, E. S.
Affiliations
Mental Health Services (DK)
Venue
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal
Published
2016-06
Volume
39
Issue
2
Pages
167-172
ISSN
  • 1095-158X (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-3126
OpenAlex
W2331079114
Cited by
34
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
FWCI
7.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Trygfonden
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
shared decision-making, mobile application, decision aids, mental health services, peer support, recovery model, consumer-provider relationship, power imbalance, technology barriers, mental health service users
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Mental Disorders, Decision Making, Humans, Mental Health Services, Patient Participation, Pilot Projects

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review