Cited by 28Digital Mental Health InterventionsFamily Caregiving in Mental IllnessUsability and User Interface Design

A Web-Based Intervention for Relatives of People Experiencing Psychosis or Bipolar Disorder: Design Study Using a User-Centered Approach

Open access
Honary, Mahsa, Fisher, Naomi Ruth, McNaney, Roisin, Lobban, Fiona·2018·JMIR Mental Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Relatives of people experiencing bipolar mood episodes or psychosis face a multitude of challenges (eg, social isolation, limited coping strategies, and issues with maintaining relationships). Despite this, there is limited informational and emotional support for people who find themselves in supporting or caring roles. Digital technologies provide us with an opportunity to offer accessible tools, which can be used flexibly to provide evidence-based information and support, allowing relatives to build their understanding of mental health problems and learn from others who have similar experiences. However, to design tools that are useful to relatives, we first need to understand their needs. Objective: The aim of this study was to use a user-centered design approach to develop an accessible Web-based intervention, based on the Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) booklet, to support the informational and emotional needs of relatives of people experiencing psychosis or bipolar disorder. Methods: We engaged relatives of people with experiences of bipolar disorder or psychosis in workshops to identify their needs and design requirements for developing a Web-based version of a paper-based toolkit. We used a 2-phase qualitative approach to explore relatives’ views on content, design, and functionalities, which are considered to be engaging and useful in a Web-based intervention. In phase 1, we consulted 24 relatives in 2 workshops to better understand their existing support infrastructure, their barriers for accessing support, unmet needs, and relatives’ views on online support. On the basis of the results of these workshops, we developed a set of design considerations to be explored in a smaller workshop. Workshop 3 then involved working with 2 digitally literate relatives to design a usable and acceptable interface for our Web-based toolkit. Finally, in phase 2, we conducted a heuristic evaluation to assess the usability of the toolkit. Results: Our findings indicated that relatives require technologies that (1) they can place their trust in, particularly when discussing a highly sensitive topic, (2) enable learning from the lived experiences of others while retaining confidentiality, and (3) they can work through at their own pace in a personalized manner. Conclusions: Our study highlights the need for providing a trustworthy, supportive tool where relatives can engage with people who have similar experiences to their own. Our heuristic evaluation showed promise in terms of perceived usability of the REACT Web-based intervention. Through this work, we emphasize the need to involve stakeholders with various characteristics, including users with limited computer literacy or experience in online support.

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 · 10.2196/11473

Cites

69 of 69 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?

  • Eliciting requirements from target groups comprising patients who are vulnerable and clinically complex, such as people with psychosis or dementia, might be challenging.

    “Third, it was mentioned that eliciting requirements from target groups comprising patients who are vulnerable and clinically complex, such as people with psychosis or dementia, might be challenging.”
  • It might not be possible to include all requirements in an eHealth technology because of practical, technical, or financial limitations.

    “Second, it might not be possible to include all requirements in an eHealth technology because of practical, technical, or financial limitations.”

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. [70]Monk A Hassenzahl M Blythe M Reed D Funology: designing enjoyment 2002 CHI'02 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems 2002 Minneapolis

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Honary, M., Fisher, N. R., McNaney, R., & Lobban, F.
Affiliations
Lancaster University (GB)
Corresponding author
Honary, Mahsa
Venue
JMIR Mental Health
Published
2018-12-07
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
e11473
ISSN
2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2897654269
Cited by
28
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (HS&DR/14/04/16, PB-PG-0807-14075, 14/04/16, 14/49/34, HTA/14/49/34)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/K031910/1)
  • Health Technology Assessment Programme (14/49/34)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
relatives of people with psychosis, online intervention, user-centered design, online support, caregiver burden, usability evaluation, heuristic evaluation, stakeholder engagement, digital literacy, confidentiality, lived experience sharing

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