Smartphone Ownership, Smartphone Utilization, and Interest in Using Mental Health Apps to Address Substance Use Disorders: Literature Review and Cross-sectional Survey Study Across Two Sites
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been increasing interest in implementing digital technologies to diagnose, monitor, and intervene in substance use disorders. Smartphones are now a vehicle for facilitating telepsychiatry visits, measuring health metrics, and communicating with health care professionals. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the movement toward web-based and hybrid clinic visits and meetings, it has become especially salient to assess phone ownership among individuals with substance use disorders and their comfort in navigating phone functionality and using phones for mental health purposes. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to summarize the current literature around smartphone ownership, smartphone utilization, and the acceptability of using smartphones for mental health purposes and assess these variables across two disparate substance use treatment sites. METHODS: We performed a focused literature review via a search of two academic databases (PubMed and Google Scholar) for publications since 2007 on the topics of smartphone ownership, smartphone utilization, and the acceptability of using mobile apps for mental health purposes among the substance use population. Additionally, we conducted a cross-sectional survey study that included 51 participants across two sites in New England-an inpatient detoxification unit that predominantly treats patients with alcohol use disorder and an outpatient methadone maintenance treatment clinic. RESULTS: Prior studies indicated that mobile phone ownership among the substance use population between 2013 and 2019 ranged from 83% to 94%, while smartphone ownership ranged from 57% to 94%. The results from our study across the two sites indicated 96% (49/51) mobile phone ownership and 92% (47/51) smartphone ownership among the substance use population. Although most (43/49, 88%) patients across both sites reported currently using apps on their phone, a minority (19/48, 40%) reported previously using any apps for mental health purposes. More than half of the participants reported feeling at least neutrally comfortable with a mental health app gathering information regarding appointment reminders (32/48, 67%), medication reminders (33/48, 69%), and symptom surveys (26/45, 58%). Most patients were concerned about privacy (34/51, 67%) and felt uncomfortable with an app gathering location (29/47, 62%) and social (27/47, 57%) information for health care purposes. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents reported owning a mobile phone (49/51, 96%) and smartphone (47/51, 92%), consistent with prior studies. Many respondents felt comfortable with mental health apps gathering most forms of personal information and with communicating with their clinician about their mental health. The differential results from the two sites, namely greater concerns about the cost of mental health apps among the methadone maintenance treatment cohort and less experience with downloading apps among the older inpatient detoxification cohort, may indicate that clinicians should tailor technological interventions based on local demographics and practice sites and that there is likely not a one-size-fits-all digital psychiatry solution.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».