Differences in the Use and Opinions About New eHealth Technologies Among Patients With Psychosis: Structured Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a growing interest in the use of technology in order to support the treatment of psychotic disorders, limited knowledge exists about the viability and acceptability of these eHealth interventions in relation to the clinical characteristics of patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the access and use of, as well as experiences and interest in, new technologies using a survey of patients diagnosed with early psychosis compared with a survey of patients diagnosed with chronic psychotic disorders. METHODS: We designed a structured questionnaire. This questionnaire was divided into five parts: (1) clinical and demographic information, (2) access and use of the internet, (3) use of the internet in relation to mental health, (4) experiences with technology, and (5) patients' interest in eHealth services. In total, 105 patients were recruited from early psychosis units (n=65) and recovery units (n=40). RESULTS: In this study, 84.8% (89/105) of the patients had access to the internet and 88.6% (93/105) owned an electronic internet device. In total, 71.3% (57/80) of patients who owned a mobile phone were interested in eHealth systems and 38.2% (37/97) reported negative experiences related to the internet usage. We observed differences between the groups in terms of device ownership (P=.02), the frequency of internet access (P<.001), the use of social media (P=.01), and seeking health information (P=.04); the differences were found to be higher in the early psychosis group. No differences were found between the groups in terms of the use of internet in relation to mental health, experiences and opinions about the internet, or interest in eHealth interventions (P=.43). CONCLUSIONS: The availability and use of technology for the participants in our survey were equivalent to those for the general population. The differences found between the groups in relation to the access or use of technology seemed to due to age-related factors. The use of technology involving mental health and the interest in eHealth interventions were mainly positive and equivalent between the groups. Accordingly, this group of patients is a potential target for the emerging eHealth interventions, regardless of their clinical status. However, 28.7% (23/80) of the studied patients rejected the use of internet interventions and 38.2% (37/97) had unpleasant experiences related to its usage; thus, more in-depth studies are needed to better define the profile of patients with psychosis who may benefit from eHealth treatments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".