Cited by 11Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Barriers to and facilitators of engaging with and adhering to guided internet-based interventions for depression prevention and reduction of pain-related disability in green professions: mixed methods study

Open access
Braun, Lina, Freund, Johanna, Thielecke, Janika, Baumeister, Harald, Ebert, David Daniel, Titzler, Ingrid·2022·JMIR Mental Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Internet-based interventions (IBIs) are effective for the prevention and treatment of mental disorders and are valuable additions for improving routine care. However, the uptake of and adherence to IBIs are often limited. To increase the actual use of IBIs, it is important to identify factors for engaging with and adhering to IBIs. OBJECTIVE: We qualitatively evaluated barriers and facilitators regarding a portfolio of guided IBIs in green professions (farmers, gardeners, and foresters). METHODS: Interview participants were selected from 2 randomized controlled trials for either the prevention of depression (Prevention of Depression in Agriculturists [PROD-A]) or the reduction of pain interference (Preventive Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain in Agriculturists [PACT-A]) in green professions. The intervention group in PROD-A (N=180) participated in an IBI program, receiving access to 1 of 6 symptom-tailored IBIs. The intervention group in PACT-A (N=44) received access to an IBI for chronic pain. Overall, 41 semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Barriers and facilitators were identified via inductive qualitative content analysis, with 2 independent coders reaching almost perfect intercoder reliability (Cohen κ=0.92). A quantitative follow-up survey (30/41, 73%) was conducted to validate the results. Subgroup analyses were performed based on intervention characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 42 barriers and 26 facilitators, which we assigned to 4 superordinate categories related to the intervention (20 barriers; 17 facilitators), work (4 barriers; 1 facilitator), individual (13 barriers; 8 facilitators), and technical (5 barriers; 0 facilitators) aspects. Key barriers (identified by at least 50% of the interviewees) were time-consuming work life (29/40, 73%) and time-consuming private life (23/40, 58%). Similarly, the most frequently identified facilitators included presence of motivation, curiosity, interest and perseverance (30/40, 75%), flexible time management at work (25/40, 63%), and support from family and friends (20/40, 50%). Although agreement with barriers in the quantitative follow-up survey was rather low (mean 24%, SD 11%), agreement with facilitators was substantially higher (mean 80%, SD 13%). Differences in agreement rates were found particularly between intervention completers and noncompleters. Completers agreed significantly more often that perceived IBI success; being motivated, curious, interested, and perseverant; and having a persisting level of psychological strain have been facilitating. Noncompleters agreed more often with experiencing the e-coach contact as insufficient and technical problems as hindering for intervention completion. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, strategies such as customization of modules for more flexible and adaptive use; video chat options with the e-coach; options to facilitate social support by family, friends, or other participants; or using prompts to facilitate training completion can be derived. These approaches could be evaluated in further quantitative research designs in terms of their potential to enhance intervention use in this occupational group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00014000, https://tinyurl.com/3bukfr48; German Clinical Trials Register DRKS0001461, https://tinyurl.com/ebsn4sns.

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 · 10.2196/39122

Cites

72 of 72 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?

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: 4

  1. [49]Dresing T Pehl T Praxisbuch Interview, Transkription & Analyse Anleitungen und Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende. 8th edition 2018 Marburg, Germany Eigenverl
  2. [50]Kruse J Qualitative Interviewforschung: Ein integrativer Ansatz. 2nd edition 2015 Weinheim, Germany Beltz Juventa
  3. [52]Mayring P Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 11th edition 2015 Weinheim, Germany Beltz
  4. [55]Mayring P Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. 6th edition 2016 Weinheim, Germany Beltz Verlag

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Braun, L., Freund, J., Thielecke, J., Baumeister, H., Ebert, D. D., & Titzler, I.
Affiliations
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
Braun, Lina
Venue
JMIR Mental Health
Published
2022-11-09
Volume
9
Issue
11
Pages
e39122
ISSN
2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4290190694
Cited by
11
References
72
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • OPen Access Repositorium der Universität Ulm (OPARU) (Ulm University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Universität Ulm, Kommunikations- und Informationszentrum (kiz) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
  • Universität Ulm
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
online intervention, barriers to engagement, adherence, depression prevention, pain-related disability, chronic pain, farmers, gardeners, foresters, acceptance and commitment therapy, work-life balance, time management, family support, motivation, mental health promotion, workplace mental health, farmer mental health, digital mental health

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