Prospective acceptance of distinct mobile mental health features in psychiatric patients and mental health professionals.
Adult
Attitude of Health Personnel
Female
Germany
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Male
Mental Disorders
/ therapy
Mental Health Services
/ statistics & numerical data
Middle Aged
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Prospective Studies
Telemedicine
/ statistics & numerical data
Acceptance
Actimetry
Data security
Geotracking
mHealth
Journal
Journal of psychiatric research
ISSN: 1879-1379
Titre abrégé: J Psychiatr Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0376331
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2019
02 2019
Historique:
received:
19
10
2018
revised:
30
11
2018
accepted:
30
11
2018
pubmed:
12
12
2018
medline:
28
3
2020
entrez:
12
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite numerous mobile health (mHealth) applications available, current impact on mental healthcare is low. Users face overwhelming variety of applications and sensors. Evidence for distinct features' effectiveness is largely lacking. Along with technical feasibility and data security issues, readiness and preferences of patients predetermine engagement and impact of mHealth in psychiatry. We aimed to assess the prospective attitudes of psychiatric patients and mental health professionals (MHP) towards mHealth applications in general and with regard to distinct features. We conducted a survey entailing 486 subjects (297 MHP and 189 patients). Professionals and patients indicate both, considerable acceptance and rejection for most features. Marked concerns across groups relate to data security in general. Actimetry and geotracking were considered particularly skeptical. Importantly, most patients prefer to be prompted timely about health status changes. Altogether, evidence indicates substantial support for mHealth features in mental healthcare despite considerable rejection of distinct features. We conclude that tighter collaboration between researchers, developers and clinicians must address matching mHealth-apps to patients' needs. Improved information on potential risks and possibilities associated with mHealth features is strongly indicated in MHP and psychiatric patients in order to reach an appropriately informed decision on individual involvement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite numerous mobile health (mHealth) applications available, current impact on mental healthcare is low. Users face overwhelming variety of applications and sensors. Evidence for distinct features' effectiveness is largely lacking. Along with technical feasibility and data security issues, readiness and preferences of patients predetermine engagement and impact of mHealth in psychiatry.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to assess the prospective attitudes of psychiatric patients and mental health professionals (MHP) towards mHealth applications in general and with regard to distinct features.
METHODS
We conducted a survey entailing 486 subjects (297 MHP and 189 patients).
RESULTS
Professionals and patients indicate both, considerable acceptance and rejection for most features. Marked concerns across groups relate to data security in general. Actimetry and geotracking were considered particularly skeptical. Importantly, most patients prefer to be prompted timely about health status changes.
CONCLUSION
Altogether, evidence indicates substantial support for mHealth features in mental healthcare despite considerable rejection of distinct features. We conclude that tighter collaboration between researchers, developers and clinicians must address matching mHealth-apps to patients' needs. Improved information on potential risks and possibilities associated with mHealth features is strongly indicated in MHP and psychiatric patients in order to reach an appropriately informed decision on individual involvement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30530207
pii: S0022-3956(18)31248-2
doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.11.025
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
126-132Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.