Tom Van Daele
Christiaan Vis
Eva Van Assche
Heleen Riper- 1Psychology and Technology, Centre of Expertise Care and Well-Being, Thomas More University of Applied Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium
- 2Centre for Technological Innovation, Mental Health and Education, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
- 3Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- 4Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- 5Section for Research-Based Innovation, Forhelse Research Centre for Digital Mental Health Services, Division of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
- 6Section Clinical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Editorial on the Research Topic
Dissemination, implementation and uptake of digital and technological interventions in practice
The effectiveness of a wide range of digital interventions, like guided self-help interventions, has been well established for common mental health disorders such as depression and anxiety. In highly controlled research studies, these interventions have a substantial impact, leading to both decreases in participants' symptoms, as well as improvements in their quality of life [e.g. (1)]. Similar effects are also increasingly being reported in routine clinical practice (2). In general, guidance by mental healthcare professionals allows for sufficiently high adherence and limits drop-out (3, 4) which are key to maximise the potential of these interventions.
Research has in the past already focused on how digital interventions are both perceived, as well as received by end-users and on the effective implementation of such interventions. Although initial studies were primarily observational, i.e., describing implementation problems and barriers, research in recent years has also increasingly started to focus on developing and testing strategies to overcome these (5). However, due to the applied nature and complex settings in which these studies take place, this remains particularly challenging, especially when it comes to measuring these processes and outcomes (6). The current Research Topic focuses on this developing domain of implementation science and encompasses two topics related to digital interventions: (1) attitudes and acceptance of end-users and (2) routine care implementation.
In a first of two articles on attitudes and acceptance of end-users, Moeller et al. set up a qualitative observational study to investigate how mental health professionals decide to (not) support home-based video consultations as a part of outpatient treatment for patients with a wide range of diagnoses (i.e., anxiety disorders including obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, eating disorders, Asperger's disorder, and personality disorders). Data was obtained through field observations and informal conversations with clinicians, managers, and the implementation team in two departments of the Mental Health Service in the Region of Southern Denmark. Grounded theory was relied on as the analytical framework for subsequent analysis. This led to the identification of factors which clinicians perceived as relevant when screening and deciding on a video-consultations with patients. Important factors include the perceived added value of video-conferencing, personal and professional attitudes towards applied technologies, and technical stability and support. The article by Terhorst et al. explored to what extent a 3-min video could increase the acceptance of the general population towards smart sensing, the utilization of digital markers collected via sensors from digital devices. In a randomized controlled trial with a single post-assessment, they found that an informational video on c failed to significantly increase existing low to moderate acceptance of this particular type of technology. They nevertheless highlighted the importance for future acceptance facilitating interventions to target performance expectancy, social influence, and trust.
In an article on implementation in routine care, Van Assche et al. looked into the willingness of mental healthcare organisations to implement digital mental health as an add-on to inpatient-care, exploring both reasons for refusal as well as reasons to consider this. The Moodbuster platform for depression (7) was subsequently implemented in four organisations where professionals used Moodbuster as they saw fit in their regular therapy and patients participated on a voluntary basis. This resulted in low actual use by patients, as well as professionals. Two studies Freund et al., Tarp et al. that aimed to implement digital interventions or procedures in routine care relied on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a starting point to evaluate a screening procedure and a digital prevention intervention from the perspective of professionals. The CFIR framework is a possible framework which consolidates constructs from 19 implementation theories, models, and frameworks. It offers a pragmatic structure to assess implementation factors, by collecting data from individuals (to a more or lesser extent) involved in the implementation process (8). Tarp et al. assessed the implementation of a screening procedure using the itFits toolkit (9) in an iCBT routine outpatient mental health care clinic. Using cross-sectional qualitative as well as quantitative data they explored how the structured introduction of this novel process led to gradual and increasing normalization of the procedure over time. Freund et al., in turn, relied on CFIR to assess barriers to implementing digital prevention interventions (guided self-help interventions and personalised telephone coaching) for farmers with depressive symptoms. In this study, a social insurer introduced digital interventions for their insured members to complement existing prevention initiatives (e.g., group preventive services) in farmers' local vicinity. The perspectives of social insurance employees, who facilitated implementation and provide prevention services, was assessed in depth through online surveys and focus groups. Both studies demonstrate how CFIR can guide assessment of factors that influence implementation processes and might even offer inspiration for prospective use, i.e., strategy design, alongside other tools, e.g., the strategy matching tool combining CFIR and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation (ERIC) proposed by Waltz et al. (10). At the same time, they also demonstrate the potential added value of concrete frameworks to bring further method to the complexity of routine care implementation.
In conclusion, the current Research Topic highlights the diversity of this expanding field across several exploratory and descriptive papers which each by itself help to gain more insights into further optimizing digital mental health implementation in routine care.
Author contributions
TV: Writing – original draft. CV: Writing – review & editing. EV: Writing – review & editing. HR: Writing – review & editing.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Karyotaki E, Efthimiou O, Miguel C, Genannt Bermpohl FM, Furukawa TA, Cuijpers P, et al. Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for depression: a systematic review and individual patient data network meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. (2021) 78(4):361–71. doi: 10.1007/s00406-020-01133-y
2. Etzelmueller A, Vis C, Karyotaki E, Baumeister H, Titov N, Berking M, et al. Effects of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy in routine care for adults in treatment for depression and anxiety: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. (2020) 22(8):e18100. doi: 10.2196/18100
3. Buelens F, Luyten P, Claeys H, Van Assche E, Van Daele T. Usage of unguided, guided, and blended care for depression offered in routine clinical care: lessons learned. Internet Interv. (2023) 34:100670. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2023.100670
4. Van Ballegooijen W, Cuijpers P, van Straten A, Karyotaki E, Andersson G, Smit JH, et al. Adherence to internet-based and face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy for depression: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. (2014) 9(7):e100674. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100674
5. Lewis CC, Klasnja P, Lyon AR, Powell BJ, Lengnick-Hall R, Buchanan G, et al. The mechanics of implementation strategies and measures: advancing the study of implementation mechanisms. Implement Sci Commun. (2022) 3(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s43058-022-00358-3
6. Mettert K, Lewis C, Dorsey C, Halko H, Weiner B. Measuring implementation outcomes: an updated systematic review of measures’ psychometric properties. Implement Res Pract. (2020) 1:2633489520936644. doi: 10.1177/2633489520936644
7. Warmerdam L, Riper H, Klein M, Van Den Ven P, Rocha A, Ricardo Henriques M, et al. Innovative ICT solutions to improve treatment outcomes for depression: the ICT4Depression project. Stud Health Technol Inform. (2012) 181:339–43. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-121-2-339
8. Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback. Implement Sci. (2022) 17(1):1–16. doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0
9. Vis C, Schuurmans J, Aouizerate B, Atipei Craggs M, Batterham P, Buhrmann L, et al. Effectiveness of self-guided tailored implementation strategies in integrating and embedding internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy in routine mental health care: results of a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial. J Med Internet Res. (2023) 25:e41532. doi: 10.2196/41532
Keywords: digital and technological interventions, digital mental health, implementation, attitudes and acceptance of end-users, routine care
Citation: Van Daele T, Vis C, Van Assche E and Riper H (2024) Editorial: Dissemination, implementation and uptake of digital and technological interventions in practice. Front. Digit. Health 5:1349545. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1349545
Received: 4 December 2023; Accepted: 29 December 2023;
Published: 11 January 2024.
Edited and Reviewed by: Milena B. Cukic, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Switzerland
© 2024 Van Daele, Vis, Van Assche and Riper. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Tom Van Daele tom.vandaele@thomasmore.be