Assessing Digital Risk in Psychiatric Patients: Mixed Methods Study of Psychiatry Trainees' Experiences, Views, and Understanding.
internet
mental health
mixed methods
mobile phone
psychiatrists
risk assessment
self-injurious behavior
suicide
Journal
JMIR mental health
ISSN: 2368-7959
Titre abrégé: JMIR Ment Health
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101658926
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jul 2020
29 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
31
03
2020
accepted:
20
05
2020
revised:
20
05
2020
entrez:
30
7
2020
pubmed:
30
7
2020
medline:
30
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of digital technology can help people access information and provide support for their mental health problems, but it can also expose them to risk, such as bullying or prosuicide websites. It may be important to consider internet-related risk behavior (digital risk) within a generic psychiatric risk assessment, but no studies have explored the practice or acceptability of this among psychiatrists. This study aimed to explore psychiatry trainees' experiences, views, and understanding of digital risk in psychiatry. We predicted that clinician awareness would be highest among trainees who work in child and adolescent mental health services. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of psychiatry trainees attending a UK regional trainees' conference to investigate how they routinely assess patients' internet use and related risk of harm and their experience and confidence in assessing these risks. We conducted focus groups to further explore trainees' understandings and experiences of digital risk assessment. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests were used to present the quantitative data. A thematic analysis was used to identify the key themes in the qualitative data set. The cross-sectional survey was completed by 113 out of 312 psychiatry trainees (response rate 36.2%), from a range of subspecialties and experience levels. Half of the trainees (57/113, 50.4%) reported treating patients exposed to digital risk, particularly trainees subspecializing in child and adolescent psychiatry (17/22, 77% vs 40/91, 44%;P=.02). However, 67.3% (76/113) reported not feeling competent to assess digital risk. Child and adolescent psychiatrists were more likely than others to ask patients routinely about specific digital risk domains, including reckless web-based behavior (18/20, 90% vs 54/82, 66%; P=.03), prosuicide websites (20/21, 95% vs 57/81, 70%; P=.01), and online sexual behavior (17/21, 81% vs 44/81, 54%; P=.02). Although 84.1% (95/113) of the participants reported using a proforma to record general risk assessment, only 5% (5/95) of these participants prompted an assessment of internet use. Only 9.7% (11/113) of the trainees had received digital risk training, and 73.5% (83/113) reported that they would value this. Our thematic analysis of transcripts from 3 focus groups (comprising 11 trainees) identified 2 main themes: barriers to assessment and management of digital risk, and the double-edged sword of web use. Barriers reported included the novelty and complexity of the internet, a lack of confidence and guidance in addressing internet use directly, and ongoing tension between assessment and privacy. Although it is common for psychiatrists to encounter patients subject to digital risk, trainee psychiatrists lack competence and confidence in their assessment. Training in digital risk and the inclusion of prompts in standardized risk proformas would promote good clinical practice and prevent a potential blind spot in general risk assessment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The use of digital technology can help people access information and provide support for their mental health problems, but it can also expose them to risk, such as bullying or prosuicide websites. It may be important to consider internet-related risk behavior (digital risk) within a generic psychiatric risk assessment, but no studies have explored the practice or acceptability of this among psychiatrists.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to explore psychiatry trainees' experiences, views, and understanding of digital risk in psychiatry. We predicted that clinician awareness would be highest among trainees who work in child and adolescent mental health services.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of psychiatry trainees attending a UK regional trainees' conference to investigate how they routinely assess patients' internet use and related risk of harm and their experience and confidence in assessing these risks. We conducted focus groups to further explore trainees' understandings and experiences of digital risk assessment. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests were used to present the quantitative data. A thematic analysis was used to identify the key themes in the qualitative data set.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The cross-sectional survey was completed by 113 out of 312 psychiatry trainees (response rate 36.2%), from a range of subspecialties and experience levels. Half of the trainees (57/113, 50.4%) reported treating patients exposed to digital risk, particularly trainees subspecializing in child and adolescent psychiatry (17/22, 77% vs 40/91, 44%;P=.02). However, 67.3% (76/113) reported not feeling competent to assess digital risk. Child and adolescent psychiatrists were more likely than others to ask patients routinely about specific digital risk domains, including reckless web-based behavior (18/20, 90% vs 54/82, 66%; P=.03), prosuicide websites (20/21, 95% vs 57/81, 70%; P=.01), and online sexual behavior (17/21, 81% vs 44/81, 54%; P=.02). Although 84.1% (95/113) of the participants reported using a proforma to record general risk assessment, only 5% (5/95) of these participants prompted an assessment of internet use. Only 9.7% (11/113) of the trainees had received digital risk training, and 73.5% (83/113) reported that they would value this. Our thematic analysis of transcripts from 3 focus groups (comprising 11 trainees) identified 2 main themes: barriers to assessment and management of digital risk, and the double-edged sword of web use. Barriers reported included the novelty and complexity of the internet, a lack of confidence and guidance in addressing internet use directly, and ongoing tension between assessment and privacy.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Although it is common for psychiatrists to encounter patients subject to digital risk, trainee psychiatrists lack competence and confidence in their assessment. Training in digital risk and the inclusion of prompts in standardized risk proformas would promote good clinical practice and prevent a potential blind spot in general risk assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32726288
pii: v7i7e19008
doi: 10.2196/19008
pmc: PMC7424482
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e19008Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0802441
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/L501487/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
©Golnar Aref-Adib, Gabriella Landy, Michelle Eskinazi, Andrew Sommerlad, Nicola Morant, Sonia Johnson, Richard Graham, David Osborn, Alexandra Pitman. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (http://mental.jmir.org), 29.07.2020.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Sep 30;13(3):e74
pubmed: 21965220
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 19;20(4):e129
pubmed: 29674305
Eur Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;27(1):1-8
pubmed: 22153731
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 30;8(10):e77555
pubmed: 24204868
Qual Health Res. 1999 Jan;9(1):26-44
pubmed: 10558357
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011 Oct;8(10):3938-52
pubmed: 22073021
Crisis. 2008;29(1):11-9
pubmed: 18389641
BJPsych Bull. 2015 Dec;39(6):278-83
pubmed: 26755985
JAMA Pediatr. 2014 Nov;168(11):1015-22
pubmed: 25178884
Crisis. 2018 Nov;39(6):469-478
pubmed: 29848080
Br J Psychiatry. 2011 May;198(5):379-84
pubmed: 21525521
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Aug 22;20(8):e11115
pubmed: 30135053