PreprintCited by 52Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPsychiatric care and mental health services

Understanding Mental Health Professionals’ Perspectives and Practices Regarding the Implementation of Digital Mental Health: Qualitative Study (Preprint)

Open access
Mendes-Santos, Cristina, Nunes, Francisco, Weiderpass, Elisabete, Santana, Rui, Andersson, Gerhard·2021·JMIR Formative Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential of digital mental health to provide cost-effective mental health care, its adoption in clinical settings is limited, and little is known about the perspectives and practices of mental health professionals regarding its implementation or the factors influencing these perspectives and practices. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterize in depth the perspectives and practices of mental health professionals regarding the implementation of digital mental health and explore the factors affecting such perspectives and practices. METHODS: A qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews with Portuguese mental health professionals (N=13)—psychologists and psychiatrists—was conducted. The transcribed interviews were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Mental health professionals deemed important or engaged in the following practices during the implementation of digital mental health: indication evaluation, therapeutic contract negotiation, digital psychological assessment, technology setup and management, and intervention delivery and follow-up. Low-threshold accessibility and professionals’ perceived duty to provide support to their clients facilitated the implementation of digital mental health. Conversely, the lack of structured intervention frameworks; the unavailability of usable, validated, and affordable technology; and the absence of structured training programs inhibited digital mental health implementation by mental health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The publication of practice frameworks, development of evidence-based technology, and delivery of structured training seem key to expediting implementation and encouraging the sustained adoption of digital mental health by mental health professionals.

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/preprints.32558

Cites

73 of 73 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 [52]

    The Methods (Study Context; Data Collection, pages unavailable) describe a qualitative interview study conducted by the research team in the iNNOVBC project with 13 mental health professionals. The Results (Technology Setup and Management, page unavailable) report participants’ views on developing intervention content, but the paper does not establish that this research was mixed methods or that its findings were used to develop the citing document’s additional content. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mendes-Santos, C., Nunes, F., Weiderpass, E., Santana, R., & Andersson, G.
Affiliations
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Fraunhofer Portugal Research (PT)
  • Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (FR)
  • Universidade Nova de Lisboa (PT)
Corresponding author
Mendes-Santos, Cristina
Venue
JMIR Formative Research
Published
2021-08-02
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
e32558-e32558
ISSN
2561-326X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4210826252
Cited by
52
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2
FWCI
9.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Formative Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • European Commission (2020 ‘)
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 › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
digital mental health, implementation, mental health professionals, psychologists, psychiatrists, professional perspectives, barriers to adoption, technology training, practice framework, external beam radiotherapy

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