Conditions for the Successful Integration of an eHealth Tool "StopBlues" Into Community-Based Interventions in France: Results From a Multiple Correspondence Analysis.
community participation
eHealth
health promotion
internet-based intervention
mental health
prevention
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 04 2022
22 04 2022
Historique:
received:
06
05
2021
accepted:
29
10
2021
revised:
23
09
2021
entrez:
22
4
2022
pubmed:
23
4
2022
medline:
27
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
For over a decade, digital health has held promise for enabling broader access to health information, education, and services for the general population at a lower cost. However, recent studies have shown mixed results leading to a certain disappointment regarding the benefits of eHealth technologies. In this context, community-based health promotion represents an interesting and efficient conceptual framework that could help increase the adoption of digital health solutions and facilitate their evaluation. To understand how the local implementation of the promotion of an eHealth tool, StopBlues (SB), aimed at preventing psychological distress and suicide, varied according to local contexts and if the implementation was related to the use of the tool. The study was nested within a cluster-randomized controlled trial that was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the promotion, with before and after observation (NCT03565562). Data from questionnaires, observations, and institutional sources were collected in 27 localities where SB was implemented. A multiple correspondence analysis was performed to assess the relations between context, type of implementation and promotion, and use of the tool. Three distinct promotion patterns emerged according to the profiles of the localities that were associated with specific SB utilization rates. From highest to lowest utilization rates, they are listed as follows: the privileged urban localities, investing in health that implemented a high-intensity and digital promotion, demonstrating a greater capacity to take ownership of the project; the urban, but less privileged localities that, in spite of having relatively little experience in health policy implementation, managed to implement a traditional and high-intensity promotion; and the rural localities, with little experience in addressing health issues, that implemented low-intensity promotion but could not overcome the challenges associated with their local context. These findings indicate the substantial influence of local context on the reception of digital tools. The urban and socioeconomic status profiles of the localities, along with their investment and pre-existing experience in health, appear to be critical for shaping the promotion and implementation of eHealth tools in terms of intensity and use of digital communication. The more digital channels used, the higher the utilization rates, ultimately leading to the overall success of the intervention. RR2-10.1186/s13063-020-04464-2.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
For over a decade, digital health has held promise for enabling broader access to health information, education, and services for the general population at a lower cost. However, recent studies have shown mixed results leading to a certain disappointment regarding the benefits of eHealth technologies. In this context, community-based health promotion represents an interesting and efficient conceptual framework that could help increase the adoption of digital health solutions and facilitate their evaluation.
OBJECTIVE
To understand how the local implementation of the promotion of an eHealth tool, StopBlues (SB), aimed at preventing psychological distress and suicide, varied according to local contexts and if the implementation was related to the use of the tool.
METHODS
The study was nested within a cluster-randomized controlled trial that was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the promotion, with before and after observation (NCT03565562). Data from questionnaires, observations, and institutional sources were collected in 27 localities where SB was implemented. A multiple correspondence analysis was performed to assess the relations between context, type of implementation and promotion, and use of the tool.
RESULTS
Three distinct promotion patterns emerged according to the profiles of the localities that were associated with specific SB utilization rates. From highest to lowest utilization rates, they are listed as follows: the privileged urban localities, investing in health that implemented a high-intensity and digital promotion, demonstrating a greater capacity to take ownership of the project; the urban, but less privileged localities that, in spite of having relatively little experience in health policy implementation, managed to implement a traditional and high-intensity promotion; and the rural localities, with little experience in addressing health issues, that implemented low-intensity promotion but could not overcome the challenges associated with their local context.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings indicate the substantial influence of local context on the reception of digital tools. The urban and socioeconomic status profiles of the localities, along with their investment and pre-existing experience in health, appear to be critical for shaping the promotion and implementation of eHealth tools in terms of intensity and use of digital communication. The more digital channels used, the higher the utilization rates, ultimately leading to the overall success of the intervention.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.1186/s13063-020-04464-2.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35451977
pii: v24i4e30218
doi: 10.2196/30218
pmc: PMC9077507
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03565562']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e30218Investigateurs
Corinne Alberti
(C)
Philippe Courtet
(P)
Coralie Gandré
(C)
Bruno Giraudeau
(B)
Anaïs Le Jeannic
(A)
Jean-Luc Roelandt
(JL)
Guillaume Vaiva
(G)
Marie-Amélie Vinet
(MA)
Informations de copyright
©Kathleen Turmaine, Agnès Dumas, Karine Chevreul, PRINTEMPS Consortium. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 22.04.2022.
Références
Trials. 2019 Apr 25;20(1):234
pubmed: 31023329
J Rural Health. 2015 Summer;31(3):326-33
pubmed: 25953431
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Mar 17;17(3):e70
pubmed: 25783036
Malawi Med J. 2012 Sep;24(3):69-71
pubmed: 23638278
Mhealth. 2017 Jul 20;3:27
pubmed: 28828374
Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Feb 1;47(1):321-331
pubmed: 29025158
Am J Public Health. 2000 Jun;90(6):863-6
pubmed: 10846502
N C Med J. 2019 Jul-Aug;80(4):240-243
pubmed: 31278188
J Med Internet Res. 2006 Mar 31;8(1):e4
pubmed: 16585029
Am J Public Health. 2003 Aug;93(8):1261-7
pubmed: 12893608
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Sep 25;21(9):e14567
pubmed: 31573916
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Jun 17;2:54
pubmed: 31304400
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Dec 1;35(12):2310-2318
pubmed: 27920321
Aust J Rural Health. 2020 Apr;28(2):149-158
pubmed: 31970832
BMC Public Health. 2017 Jul 25;18(1):54
pubmed: 28743281
Internet Interv. 2016 Sep 20;6:40-49
pubmed: 30135813
Br J Psychiatry. 2006 Sep;189:273-7
pubmed: 16946364
Ann Fam Med. 2008 Jul-Aug;6(4):331-9
pubmed: 18626033
J Med Internet Res. 2006 Jun 16;8(2):e9
pubmed: 16867972
BMC Public Health. 2009 Jan 22;9:33
pubmed: 19161613
Trials. 2020 Jun 22;21(1):553
pubmed: 32571432
Health Policy Plan. 2020 Mar 1;35(2):219-234
pubmed: 31722382
Am J Public Health. 2017 Nov;107(11):1694-1696
pubmed: 29019765
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov 03;13(4):e90
pubmed: 22052161
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 12;17(10):e230
pubmed: 26459743
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Feb 01;21(2):e11534
pubmed: 30707100
BMC Public Health. 2009 Nov 23;9:428
pubmed: 19930638
J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(1):87-91
pubmed: 2319285
Eur J Public Health. 2011 Aug;21(4):397-8
pubmed: 21771736
Health Promot Int. 2015 Jun;30(2):369-79
pubmed: 23872386
Aust J Rural Health. 2014 Dec;22(6):306-9
pubmed: 25495624
Health Informatics J. 2016 Jun;22(2):81-98
pubmed: 24916567
J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 01;20(5):e10235
pubmed: 29716883
Addict Behav. 2017 Oct;73:133-136
pubmed: 28511097
Health Soc Care Community. 2018 Apr 16;:
pubmed: 29659076
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2014 May 16;2(2):e24
pubmed: 25099752
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 23;8(9):e75081
pubmed: 24086443
Health Promot Pract. 2013 Jan;14(1):15-23
pubmed: 21558472
Clin Trials. 2004 Feb;1(1):80-90
pubmed: 16281464
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Mar;30(3):284-9
pubmed: 25387437
Am J Public Health. 2008 Feb;98(2):216-21
pubmed: 18172133
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Nov 1;68(11):1144-1149
pubmed: 28712355
BMC Public Health. 2017 Dec 15;17(1):956
pubmed: 29246202
J Aging Res. 2013;2013:302163
pubmed: 24222852
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012 Feb;1248:107-23
pubmed: 22092035
Public Health Res Pract. 2015 Mar 30;25(2):e2521517
pubmed: 25848735
Soins Psychiatr. 2017 Jul - Aug;38(311):12-15
pubmed: 28683879
J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2018 Jul 30;5(3):204-217
pubmed: 31414005
Healthc Policy. 2013 Feb;8(3):27-41
pubmed: 23968625
Am J Public Health. 2013 Jan;103(1):e9-18
pubmed: 23153164
Prev Sci. 2015 Oct;16(7):1007-16
pubmed: 25946969
Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Mar-Apr;21(2):60-76
pubmed: 11900187
Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2017 Jul;13(7):437-439
pubmed: 28867974
Public Health. 2014 Dec;128(12):1118-20
pubmed: 25458115
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Jun 1;18(1):53
pubmed: 32487176
BMC Public Health. 2018 Jul 28;18(1):932
pubmed: 30055592
Prev Chronic Dis. 2016 Jan 07;13:E03
pubmed: 26741997
Eval Program Plann. 2014 Aug;45:71-81
pubmed: 24755377
Crisis. 2011;32(6):319-33
pubmed: 21945840
Implement Sci. 2015 Jun 11;10:88
pubmed: 26062907
Health Promot Int. 2013 Mar;28(1):36-42
pubmed: 22377974
Health Promot Int. 2015 Mar;30(1):174-83
pubmed: 25320120
Promot Educ. 2005;Suppl 2:47-55, 64, 70
pubmed: 15966253