Cited by 58Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealth Policy Implementation Science

Implementation of eMental Health care: viewpoints from key informants from organizations and agencies with eHealth mandates

Open access
Wozney, Lori, Newton, Amanda S., Gehring, Nicole D., Bennett, Kathryn, Huguet, Anna, Hartling, Lisa, Dyson, Michele P., McGrath, Patrick·2017·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of technology such as computers, tablets, and smartphones to improve access to and the delivery of mental health care (eMental Health care) is growing worldwide. However, despite the rapidly expanding evidence base demonstrating the efficacy of eMental Health care, its implementation in clinical practice and health care systems remains fragmented. To date, no peer-reviewed, key-informant studies have reported on the perspectives of decision-makers concerned with whether and how to implement eMental Health care. METHODS: From September to November 2015, we conducted 31 interviews with key informants responsible for leadership, policy, research, and/ or information technology in organizations influential in the adoption of technology for eMental Health care. Deductive and inductive thematic analyses of transcripts were conducted using the Behavior Change Wheel as an organizing framework. Frequency and intensity effect sizes were calculated for emerging themes to further explore patterns within the data. RESULTS: Key informant responses (n = 31) representing 6 developed countries and multiple organizations showed consensus on common factors impacting implementation: individual and organizational capacities (e.g., computer literacy skills [patients and providers], knowledge gaps about cyber security, limited knowledge of available services); motivational drivers of technology-based care (e.g., extending care, data analytics); and opportunities for health systems to advance eMental Health care implementation (e.g., intersectoral research, rapid testing cycles, sustainable funding). Frequency effect sizes showed strong associations between implementation and credibility, knowledge, workflow, patient empowerment, electronic medical record (EMR) integration, sustained funding and intersectoral networks. Intensity effect sizes showed the highest concentration of statements (>10% of all comments) related to funding, credibility, knowledge gaps, and patient empowerment. CONCLUSION: This study provides previously unavailable information about key informant perspectives on eMental Health care implementation. The themes that emerged, namely the need to intensify intersectoral research, measure/monitor readiness to implement, define cost-utility benchmarks, raise awareness about available technologies, and test assumptions that 'proven' technologies will be easily integrated can inform the design and evaluation of eMental Health care implementation models.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12911-017-0474-9

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Participants' mental health literacy, digital literacy, and digital health literacy influenced the extent to which they were able to adapt and engage with DMHIs: higher literacy was associated with higher engagement.

    “Participants’ mental health literacy [123], digital literacy [88,103,104,122,124-127], and digital health literacy [103,127] influenced the extent to which they were able to adapt and engage with DMHIs: for each type of literacy; higher literacy was associated with higher engagement.”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [126]

    The Results section, “Developing capacity for eMental Health knowledge mobilization” (page unavailable), identifies computer literacy among patients and providers as a barrier to implementation. The Discussion section, “Assess eHealth literacy skills of all stakeholder groups” (page unavailable), recommends promoting patients’ eHealth literacy. The paper does not establish that participants with higher digital or digital health literacy engaged more with DMHIs; the mental-health-literacy portion is cited to a different source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [48]Robert G Greenhalgh T MacFarlane F Peacock R Organisational factors influencing technology adoption and assimilation in the NHS: a systematic literature review 2009 London National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organization Programme

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wozney, L., Newton, A. S., Gehring, N. D., Bennett, K., Huguet, A., Hartling, L., Dyson, M. P., & McGrath, P.
Affiliations
  • Izaak Walton Killam Health Centre (CA)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Newton, Amanda S.
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2017-06-02
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
78-78
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2620955834
Cited by
58
References
49
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5
FWCI
5.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (201404KRS)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
implementation barriers, implementation facilitators, key informants, decision-makers, Behaviour Change Wheel, computer literacy, patient empowerment, electronic health record integration, intersectoral collaboration, funding, implementation readiness, health policy
MeSH terms
Health Services Research, Humans, Mental Health Services, Organizational Innovation, Telemedicine, Qualitative Research

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