Usability Issues in Evidence-Based Psychosocial Interventions and Implementation Strategies: Cross-project Analysis.
evidence-based psychosocial interventions
human-centered design
implementation science
implementation strategies
mental health
usability
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:
14 06 2022
14 06 2022
Historique:
received:
28
02
2022
accepted:
21
04
2022
revised:
20
04
2022
entrez:
14
6
2022
pubmed:
15
6
2022
medline:
18
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
People often prefer evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPIs) for mental health care; however, these interventions frequently remain unavailable to people in nonspecialty or integrated settings, such as primary care and schools. Previous research has suggested that usability, a concept from human-centered design, could support an understanding of the barriers to and facilitators of the successful adoption of EBPIs and support the redesign of EBPIs and implementation strategies. This study aimed to identify and categorize usability issues in EBPIs and their implementation strategies. We adapted a usability issue analysis and reporting format from a human-centered design. A total of 13 projects supported by the National Institute of Mental Health-funded Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness Center at the University of Washington used this format to describe usability issues for EBPIs and implementation strategies with which they were working. Center researchers used iterative affinity diagramming and coding processes to identify usability issue categories. On the basis of these categories and the underlying issues, we propose heuristics for the design or redesign of EBPIs and implementation strategies. The 13 projects reported a total of 90 usability issues, which we categorized into 12 categories, including complex and/or cognitively overwhelming, required time exceeding available time, incompatibility with interventionist preference or practice, incompatibility with existing workflow, insufficient customization to clients/recipients, intervention buy-in (value), interventionist buy-in (trust), overreliance on technology, requires unavailable infrastructure, inadequate scaffolding for client/recipient, inadequate training and scaffolding for interventionists, and lack of support for necessary communication. These issues range from minor inconveniences that affect a few interventionists or recipients to severe issues that prevent all interventionists or recipients in a setting from completing part or all of the intervention. We propose 12 corresponding heuristics to guide EBPIs and implementation strategy designers in preventing and addressing these usability issues. Usability issues were prevalent in the studied EBPIs and implementation strategies. We recommend using the lens of usability evaluation to understand and address barriers to the effective use and reach of EBPIs and implementation strategies. RR2-10.2196/14990.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
People often prefer evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPIs) for mental health care; however, these interventions frequently remain unavailable to people in nonspecialty or integrated settings, such as primary care and schools. Previous research has suggested that usability, a concept from human-centered design, could support an understanding of the barriers to and facilitators of the successful adoption of EBPIs and support the redesign of EBPIs and implementation strategies.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to identify and categorize usability issues in EBPIs and their implementation strategies.
METHODS
We adapted a usability issue analysis and reporting format from a human-centered design. A total of 13 projects supported by the National Institute of Mental Health-funded Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness Center at the University of Washington used this format to describe usability issues for EBPIs and implementation strategies with which they were working. Center researchers used iterative affinity diagramming and coding processes to identify usability issue categories. On the basis of these categories and the underlying issues, we propose heuristics for the design or redesign of EBPIs and implementation strategies.
RESULTS
The 13 projects reported a total of 90 usability issues, which we categorized into 12 categories, including complex and/or cognitively overwhelming, required time exceeding available time, incompatibility with interventionist preference or practice, incompatibility with existing workflow, insufficient customization to clients/recipients, intervention buy-in (value), interventionist buy-in (trust), overreliance on technology, requires unavailable infrastructure, inadequate scaffolding for client/recipient, inadequate training and scaffolding for interventionists, and lack of support for necessary communication. These issues range from minor inconveniences that affect a few interventionists or recipients to severe issues that prevent all interventionists or recipients in a setting from completing part or all of the intervention. We propose 12 corresponding heuristics to guide EBPIs and implementation strategy designers in preventing and addressing these usability issues.
CONCLUSIONS
Usability issues were prevalent in the studied EBPIs and implementation strategies. We recommend using the lens of usability evaluation to understand and address barriers to the effective use and reach of EBPIs and implementation strategies.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.2196/14990.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35700016
pii: v24i6e37585
doi: 10.2196/37585
pmc: PMC9240934
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e37585Investigateurs
Elena Agapie
(E)
Ian Bennett
(I)
Amy M Bauer
(AM)
Karen Bearss
(K)
Dror Ben-Zeev
(D)
Amritha Bhat
(A)
Arpita Bhattacharya
(A)
Stephanie Brewer
(S)
Jessica A Chen
(JA)
James Fogarty
(J)
John C Fortney
(JC)
Carmen Gonzalez
(C)
Gary Hsieh
(G)
Kendra Kamp
(K)
Julie Kientz
(J)
Jessica Jenness
(J)
Janine Jones
(J)
Rona L Levy
(RL)
Jill J Locke
(JJ)
Brittany Mosser
(B)
Monica Oxford
(M)
Maggie Ramirez
(M)
Patrick J Raue
(PJ)
Brenna Renn
(B)
Jaime Snyder
(J)
Jina Suh
(J)
Emily C Williams
(EC)
Oleg Zaslavsky
(O)
Informations de copyright
©Sean A Munson, Emily C Friedman, Katie Osterhage, Ryan Allred, Michael D Pullmann, Patricia A Areán, Aaron R Lyon, UW ALACRITY Center Researchers. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 14.06.2022.
Références
JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Oct 9;8(10):e14990
pubmed: 31599736
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008 May;47(5):505-514
pubmed: 18356768
J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2014;43(6):890-901
pubmed: 24134063
Pract Innov (Wash D C). 2018 Mar;3(1):56-67
pubmed: 32219174
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21 Suppl 2:S30-4
pubmed: 16637958
J Affect Disord. 2013 May;147(1-3):94-100
pubmed: 23167975
Clin Psychol (New York). 2016 Jun;23(2):180-200
pubmed: 29456295
Implement Res Pract. 2021 Jan-Dec;2:
pubmed: 35601889
Annu Rev Public Health. 2018 Apr 1;39:55-76
pubmed: 29328872
J Soc Work Educ. 2016;52(Suppl 1):S38-S50
pubmed: 28216992
Implement Sci Commun. 2021 Jul 17;2(1):78
pubmed: 34274027
Appl Ergon. 2008 Jul;39(4):459-74
pubmed: 18417095
Prev Sci. 2020 Aug;21(6):820-829
pubmed: 32307625
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2021 May;48(3):420-439
pubmed: 32940884
Autism. 2022 Apr;26(3):666-677
pubmed: 34991353
School Ment Health. 2014 May 1;6(2):99-111
pubmed: 26413173
West J Nurs Res. 2018 Jul;40(7):976-996
pubmed: 28335697
Appl Ergon. 2010 Jan;41(1):130-40
pubmed: 19632666
Implement Sci. 2017 Aug 29;12(1):108
pubmed: 28851459
Am Psychol. 2020 Nov;75(8):1080-1092
pubmed: 33252946
Cogn Behav Pract. 2014 Feb;21(1):1-11
pubmed: 25382963
Implement Sci Commun. 2020 Feb 26;1:17
pubmed: 32885179
J R Soc Med. 2011 Dec;104(12):510-20
pubmed: 22179294
Psychiatr Serv. 2012 Jun;63(6):605-7
pubmed: 22638006
J Clin Psychiatry. 2013 Jun;74(6):595-602
pubmed: 23842011
J Med Syst. 2014 Sep;38(9):99
pubmed: 25047519
Implement Sci. 2013 Dec 01;8:139
pubmed: 24289295
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2020 Sep;47(5):735-751
pubmed: 32253634
JMIR Ment Health. 2021 Jul 2;8(7):e28526
pubmed: 34255712
JMIR Form Res. 2021 Jul 13;5(7):e20969
pubmed: 34255665
Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):217-26
pubmed: 22310560
Behav Res Ther. 2013 Oct;51(10):706-10
pubmed: 23973815
Front Public Health. 2018 May 07;6:136
pubmed: 29868544
Transl Behav Med. 2019 Nov 25;9(6):1057-1064
pubmed: 30535343
Psychiatr Serv. 2011 May;62(5):532-7
pubmed: 21532080
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2000 Dec;3(4):223-41
pubmed: 11225738
Curr Diab Rep. 2014 Oct;14(10):534
pubmed: 25173689
Psychiatr Serv. 2014 Feb 1;65(2):193-200
pubmed: 24178411
J Clin Psychiatry. 2014 Mar;75(3):247-53
pubmed: 24717378
Implement Sci. 2015 Feb 12;10:21
pubmed: 25889199
Prev Sci. 2019 Aug;20(6):914-935
pubmed: 31152328
Transl Behav Med. 2021 May 25;11(5):1115-1121
pubmed: 32986098
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009 Aug;77(4):595-606
pubmed: 19634954
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013 Oct;52(10):1009-1025.e18
pubmed: 24074468
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996 Apr;64(2):295-304
pubmed: 8871414
Behav Res Ther. 2022 Apr;151:104065
pubmed: 35248749