Cited by 98Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Public Acceptability of E-Mental Health Treatment Services for Psychological Problems: A Scoping Review

Open access
Apolinário-Hagen, Jennifer, Kemper, Jessica, Stürmer, Carolina·2017·JMIR Mental Health

Abstract

Background: Over the past decades, the deficient provision of evidence-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of mental health problems has become a global challenge across health care systems. In view of the ongoing diffusion of new media and mobile technologies into everyday life, Web-delivered electronic mental health (e-mental health) treatment services have been suggested to expand the access to professional help. However, the large-scale dissemination and adoption of innovative e-mental health services is progressing slowly. This discrepancy between potential and actual impact in public health makes it essential to explore public acceptability of e-mental health treatment services across health care systems. Objective: This scoping review aimed to identify and evaluate recent empirical evidence for public acceptability, service preferences, and attitudes toward e-mental health treatments. On the basis of both frameworks for technology adoption and previous research, we defined (1) perceived helpfulness and (2) intentions to use e-mental health treatment services as indicators for public acceptability in the respective general population of reviewed studies. This mapping should reduce heterogeneity and help derive implications for systematic reviews and public health strategies. Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Psyndex, PsycARTICLES, and Cochrane Library, using reference management software for parallel searches) to identify surveys published in English in peer-reviewed journals between January 2010 and December 2015, focusing on public perceptions about e-mental health treatments outside the context of clinical, psychosocial, or diagnostic interventions. Both indicators were obtained from previous review. Exclusion criteria further involved studies targeting specific groups or programs. Results: The simultaneous database search identified 76 nonduplicate records. Four articles from Europe and Australia were included in this scoping review. Sample sizes ranged from 217 to 2411 participants of ages 14-95 years. All included studies used cross-sectional designs and self-developed measures for outcomes related to both defined indicators of public acceptability. Three surveys used observational study designs, whereas one study was conducted as an experiment investigating the impact of brief educational information on attitudes. Taken together, the findings of included surveys suggested that e-mental health treatment services were perceived as less helpful than traditional face-to-face interventions. Additionally, intentions to future use e-mental health treatments were overall smaller in comparison to face-to-face services. Professional support was essential for help-seeking intentions in case of psychological distress. Therapist-assisted e-mental health services were preferred over unguided programs. Unexpectedly, assumed associations between familiarity with Web-based self-help for health purposes or “e-awareness” and intentions to use e-mental health services were weak or inconsistent. Conclusions: Considering the marginal amount and heterogeneity of pilot studies focusing on public acceptability of e-mental health treatments, further research using theory-led approaches and validated measures is required to understand psychological facilitator and barriers for the implementation of innovative services into health care.

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/mental.6186

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Youths exhibit greater familiarity and comfort with technological innovations, including mental healthcare services.

    “As first adopters of the latest technological developments, including mental healthcare services, youths exhibit greater familiarity and comfort with these innovations19.”

    From Use of automated conversational agents in improving young population mental health: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Results (Synthesis of Results; page unavailable) report that younger age correlated with intentions to use e-mental health services, which supports a limited age-related difference in receptiveness. The paper does not establish that youths are first adopters or are more familiar and comfortable with technological innovations, including mental healthcare services. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The effectiveness of digital technology in reducing the burden of mental health at a population level is progressing slowly at best.

    “However, the effectiveness of digital technology in reducing the burden of mental health at a population level is progressing slowly at best [18-21].”

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. [22]Rogers E Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed 2003 New York Free Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Apolinário-Hagen, J., Kemper, J., & Stürmer, C.
Affiliations
  • FernUniversität in Hagen (DE)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Apolinário-Hagen, Jennifer
Venue
JMIR Mental Health
Published
2017-04-03
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
e10
ISSN
2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2605366276
Cited by
98
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
e-mental health, public acceptance, help-seeking intentions, perceived helpfulness, technology adoption, service preferences, psychological distress, access to mental health care

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