Cited by 183Digital Mental Health InterventionsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Improving Implementation of eMental Health for Mood Disorders in Routine Practice: Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitating Factors

Open access
Vis, Christiaan, Mol, Mayke, Kleiboer, Annet, Bührmann, Leah, Finch, Tracy, Smit, Jan, Riper, Heleen·2018·JMIR Mental Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Electronic mental health interventions (eMental health or eMH) can be used to increase accessibility of mental health services for mood disorders, with indications of comparable clinical outcomes as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, the actual use of eMH in routine mental health care lags behind expectations. Identifying the factors that might promote or inhibit implementation of eMH in routine care may help to overcome this gap between effectiveness studies and routine care. Objective: This paper reports the results of a systematic review of the scientific literature identifying those determinants of practices relevant to implementing eMH for mood disorders in routine practice. Methods: A broad search strategy was developed with high sensitivity to four key terms: implementation, mental health care practice, mood disorder, and eMH. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was applied to guide the review and structure the results. Thematic analysis was applied to identify the most important determinants that facilitate or hinder implementation of eMH in routine practice. Results: A total of 13,147 articles were screened, of which 48 studies were included in the review. Most studies addressed aspects of the reach (n=33) of eMH, followed by intervention adoption (n=19), implementation of eMH (n=6), and maintenance (n=4) of eMH in routine care. More than half of the studies investigated the provision of mental health services through videoconferencing technologies (n=26), followed by Internet-based interventions (n=20). The majority (n=44) of the studies were of a descriptive nature. Across all RE-AIM domains, we identified 37 determinants clustered in six main themes: acceptance, appropriateness, engagement, resources, work processes, and leadership. The determinants of practices are expressed at different levels, including patients, mental health staff, organizations, and health care system level. Depending on the context, these determinants hinder or facilitate successful implementation of eMH. Conclusions: Of the 37 determinants, three were reported most frequently: (1) the acceptance of eMH concerning expectations and preferences of patients and professionals about receiving and providing eMH in routine care, (2) the appropriateness of eMH in addressing patients’ mental health disorders, and (3) the availability, reliability, and interoperability with other existing technologies such as the electronic health records are important factors for mental health care professionals to remain engaged in providing eMH to their patients in routine care. On the basis of the taxonomy of determinants of practices developed in this review, implementation-enhancing interventions can be designed and applied to achieve better implementation outcomes. Suggestions for future research and implementation practice are provided.

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.9769

Cites

89 of 89 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vis, C., Mol, M., Kleiboer, A., Bührmann, L., Finch, T., Smit, J., & Riper, H.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Northumbria University (GB)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
Corresponding author
Vis, Christiaan
Venue
JMIR Mental Health
Published
2018-03-16
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
e20
ISSN
2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2790124019
Cited by
183
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 4
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Commission (621000, 733025, HORIZON2020)
  • GGZ inGeest
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
e-mental health, mood disorders, implementation barriers, implementation facilitators, routine mental health care, videoconferencing, online intervention, RE-AIM framework, patient acceptance, appropriateness, engagement, resources, work processes, leadership, electronic health records interoperability, telemedicine, sustainability drivers

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