E-Mental Health Innovations for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: A Qualitative Study of Implementation Needs in Health Services
Open accessAbstract
Background: Electronic mental health (e-mental health) interventions offer effective, easily accessible, and cost effective treatment and support for mental illness and well-being concerns. However, e-mental health approaches have not been well utilized by health services to date and little is known about their implementation in practice, particularly in diverse contexts and communities. Objective: This study aims to understand stakeholder perspectives on the requirements for implementing e-mental health approaches in regional and remote health services for Indigenous Australians. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 32 managers, directors, chief executive officers (CEOs), and senior practitioners of mental health, well-being, alcohol and other drug and chronic disease services. Results: The implementation of e-mental health approaches in this context is likely to be influenced by characteristics related to the adopter (practitioner skill and knowledge, client characteristics, communication barriers), the innovation (engaging and supportive approach, culturally appropriate design, evidence base, data capture, professional development opportunities), and organizational systems (innovation-systems fit, implementation planning, investment). Conclusions: There is potential for e-mental health approaches to address mental illness and poor social and emotional well-being amongst Indigenous people and to advance their quality of care. Health service stakeholders reported that e-mental health interventions are likely to be most effective when used to support or extend existing health services, including elements of client-driven and practitioner-supported use. Potential solutions to obstacles for integration of e-mental health approaches into practice were proposed including practitioner training, appropriate tool design using a consultative approach, internal organizational directives and support structures, adaptations to existing systems and policies, implementation planning and organizational and government investment.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Overall, 11 studies did not report the recruitment and/or selection process of study participants.
“Overall, 11 studies did not report the recruitment and/or selection process of study participants [30-40].”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [35]
The Methods > Recruitment section explicitly describes how participants were approached and selected: through personal and professional networks, followed by snowball and maximum variance sampling. Thus, this paper does not fit the citing sentence’s description of studies that failed to report recruitment and/or selection. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredImproved skills (e.g., managing negative emotions) could facilitate engagement.
“improved skills [89,189,198,208-211], such as managing negative emotions”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [210]
The Results (Practitioner Skill and Knowledge; Client Engagement and Support) link practitioner skills and the use of e-mental health tools to client engagement. They do not say that improved skills in managing negative emotions facilitate engagement; the discussion of shame and embarrassment concerns how a tool might make conversation easier. (LLM, conf=0.76)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 32
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [14]Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed 2003 New York, NY Free Press
- Authors
- Puszka, S., Dingwall, K. M., Sweet, M., & Nagel, T.
- Affiliations
- Charles Darwin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Puszka, Stefanie
- Venue
- JMIR Mental Health
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2016-09-19
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e43
- ISSN
- 2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5048059
- OpenAlex
- W2521802963
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 3.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
- Keywords
- e-mental health, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, Indigenous mental health, implementation barriers, stakeholder perspectives, practitioner training, implementation planning, drug and alcohol services, social and emotional wellbeing
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