MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3035498955 · doi:10.2196/18759

Technology-Enabled Solutions for Australian Mental Health Services Reform: Impact Evaluation

2020· article· en· W3035498955 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haley M LaMonica, Alyssa Milton, Katharine Braunstein, Shelley Rowe, Antonia Ottavio, Tanya Jackson, Michael Easton, Ashlea Hambleton, Ian B. Hickie, Tracey A Davenport

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Formative Research · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueDigital Mental Health Interventions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of SydneyAustralian Government
Mots-clésMental healthThematic analysisDescriptive statisticsBaseline (sea)Service providerService delivery frameworkWeb servicePsychologyService (business)Medical educationApplied psychologyMedicineNursingWorld Wide WebComputer scienceBusinessQualitative researchPsychiatryMarketing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health information technologies (HITs) are becoming increasingly recognized for their potential to provide innovative solutions to improve the delivery of mental health services and drive system reforms for better outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the baseline results of a study designed to systematically monitor and evaluate the impact of implementing an HIT, namely the InnoWell Platform, into Australian mental health services to facilitate the iterative refinement of the HIT and the service model in which it is embedded to meet the needs of consumers and their supportive others as well as health professionals and service providers. METHODS: Data were collected via web-based surveys, semistructured interviews, and a workshop with staff from the mental health services implementing the InnoWell Platform to systematically monitor and evaluate its impact. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact tests, and a reliability analysis were used to characterize the findings from the web-based surveys, including variability in the results between the services. Semistructured interviews were coded using a thematic analysis, and workshop data were coded using a basic content analysis. RESULTS: Baseline data were collected from the staff of 3 primary youth mental health services (n=18), a counseling service for veterans and their families (n=23), and a helpline for consumers affected by eating disorders and negative body image issues (n=6). As reported via web-based surveys, staff members across the services consistently agreed or strongly agreed that there was benefit associated with using technology as part of their work (38/47, 81%) and that the InnoWell Platform had the potential to improve outcomes for consumers (27/45, 60%); however, there was less certainty as to whether their consumers' capability to use technology aligned with how the InnoWell Platform would be used as part of their mental health care (11/45, 24% of the participants strongly disagreed or disagreed; 15/45, 33% were neutral; and 19/45, 42% strongly agreed or agreed). During the semistructured interviews (n=3) and workshop, participants consistently indicated that the InnoWell Platform was appropriate for their respective services; however, they questioned whether the services' respective consumers had the digital literacy required to use the technology. Additional potential barriers to implementation included health professionals' digital literacy and service readiness for change. CONCLUSIONS: Despite agreement among participants that HITs have the potential to result in improved outcomes for consumers and services, service readiness for change (eg, existing technology infrastructure and the digital literacy of staff and consumers) was noted to potentially impact the success of implementation, with less than half (20/45, 44%) of the participants indicating that their service was ready to implement new technologies to enhance mental health care. Furthermore, participants reported mixed opinions as to whether it was their responsibility to recommend technology as part of standard care.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,413
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,233
Tête enseignante GPT0,577
Écart entre enseignants0,344 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations38
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Formative ResearchMême sujetDigital Mental Health InterventionsTravaux en français237 207