Cited by 54Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMental Health Treatment and Access

Portuguese Psychologists' Attitudes Toward Internet Interventions: Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study

Open access
Mendes-Santos, Cristina, Weiderpass, Elisabete, Santana, Rui, Andersson, Gerhard·2020·JMIR Mental Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Despite the significant body of evidence on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of internet interventions, the implementation of such programs in Portugal is virtually non-existent. In addition, Portuguese psychologists’ use and their attitudes towards such interventions is largely unknown. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore Portuguese psychologists’ knowledge, training, use and attitudes towards internet interventions; to investigate perceived advantages and limitations of such interventions; identify potential drivers and barriers impacting implementation; and study potential factors associated to previous use and attitudes towards internet interventions. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was developed by the authors and disseminated by the Portuguese Psychologists Association to its members. Results: A total of 1077 members of the Portuguese Psychologists Association responded to the questionnaire between November 2018 and February 2019. Of these, 37.2% (N=363) were familiar with internet interventions and 19.2% (N=188) considered having the necessary training to work within the field. 29.6% (N=319) of participants reported to have used some form of digital technology to deliver care in the past. Telephone (23.8%; N=256), e-mail (16.2%; N=175) and SMS (16.1%; N=173) services were among the most adopted forms of digital technology, while guided (1.3%; N=14) and unguided (1.5%; N=16) internet interventions were rarely used. Accessibility (79.9%; N=860), convenience (45.7%; N=492) and cost-effectiveness (45.5%; N=490) were considered the most important advantages of internet interventions. Conversely, ethical concerns (40.7%; N=438), client’s ICT illiteracy (43.2%; N=465) and negative attitudes towards internet interventions (37%; N=398) were identified as the main limitations. An assessment of participants attitudes towards internet interventions revealed a slightly negative/neutral stance (Median=46.21; SD=15.06) and revealed greater acceptability towards blended treatment interventions (62.9%; N=615) when compared to standalone internet interventions (18.6%; N=181). Significant associations were found between knowledge (χ24=90.4; P<.001), training (χ24=94.6; P<.001), attitudes (χ23=38.4; P<.001) and previous use of internet interventions and between knowledge (χ212=109.7; P<.001), training (χ212=64.7; P<.001) and attitudes towards such interventions, with psychologists reporting to be ignorant and not having adequate training in the field, being more likely to present more negative attitudes towards these interventions and not having prior experience in its implementation. Conclusions: This study revealed that most Portuguese psychologists are not familiar with and have no training or prior experience using internet interventions and had a slightly negative/neutral attitude towards such interventions. There was greater acceptability towards blended treatment interventions compared to standalone internet interventions. Lack of knowledge and training were identified as the main barriers to overcome, underlining the need of promoting awareness and training initiatives to ensure internet interventions successful implementation.

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 · 10.2196/16817

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • Additional content was developed based on peer-reviewed sources, as well as mixed methods research conducted by the research team and involving iNNOVBC's primary and secondary end users.

    “Additional content was developed based on peer-reviewed sources [46-50], as well as mixed methods research conducted by the research team and involving iNNOVBC’s primary and secondary end users [51,52].”

    From Development and Evaluation of the Usefulness, Usability, and Feasibility of iNNOV Breast Cancer: Mixed Methods Study (2022) · cites this paper as [51]

    The Methods (Study Design and Procedures; page unavailable) describe research by the iNNOVBC team involving Portuguese psychologists, who could be secondary end users. But this paper reports a cross-sectional questionnaire, not a mixed-methods study. The Discussion (Limitations and Future Work; page unavailable) describes qualitative work with psychologists and mixed-methods work with breast cancer patients as separate ongoing studies; it does not say this research was used to develop the additional content. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This discrepancy adds to technical, usability, funding, attitudinal, and training limitations identified by participants and the literature as potentially hindering successful implementation of iNNOVBC and underlines the need to further assess and refine it in clinical contexts before scaling up.

    “This discrepancy adds to the technical, usability, funding, attitudinal, and training limitations identified by participants and the literature [51] as potentially hindering successful implementation of iNNOVBC and underlines the need to further assess and refine it in clinical contexts before scaling up the program.”

    From Development and Evaluation of the Usefulness, Usability, and Feasibility of iNNOV Breast Cancer: Mixed Methods Study (2022) · cites this paper as [51]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]World Health Organization 2020-02-11 WHO guideline: recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening: research considerations http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/311978 31162915
  2. [61]World Health Organization 2011 2 16 2020-02-11 WHO Mission to assess the progress of the mental health reforms in Portugal https://tinyurl.com/tqcb6uc 32091684

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mendes-Santos, C., Weiderpass, E., Santana, R., & Andersson, G.
Affiliations
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (FR)
  • Universidade Nova de Lisboa (PT)
Corresponding author
Mendes-Santos, Cristina
Venue
JMIR Mental Health
Published
2020-04-06
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
e16817
ISSN
2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3003162347
Cited by
54
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5
FWCI
7.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • European Commission
  • Erasmus+
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
online intervention, psychologists' attitudes, digital mental health, implementation barriers, blended treatment, cost-effectiveness, ethical considerations, ICT literacy, Portugal, SMS services

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