SynthesisJMIR mental health2025
Barriers and Facilitators of User Engagement With Digital Mental Health Interventions for People With Psychosis or Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review and Best-Fit Framework Synthesis.
Synthesis in JMIR mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Remote Measurement-Based Care Interventions for Mental Health: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR mental health · 2026Pooled it
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives and/or experiences of digital mental health tools in clinical practice: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness and Feasibility of Workplace-Based Mental Health Interventions for University Academic Staff: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- "It's like having a friend in your pocket." the service user experience of the Actissist digital health intervention for early psychosis: a qualitative study.BMC psychiatry · 2025Trial
- Process Evaluation of Digital Mental Health Interventions for Psychosis: Scoping Review With Framework Synthesis.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Perspectives on Remote Monitoring via Smartphones and Wearables Among Individuals With Lived Experience or at Risk of Eating Disorders ("This Could Go Very, Very Wrong"): Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Prescriber's Preferences for Digital Health Applications in Mental Health Care: Cross-Sectional Best-Worst Scaling Study of General Practitioners and Psychotherapists in Germany.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Using Passive Sensing to Predict Psychosis Relapse: An In-Depth Qualitative Study Exploring Perspectives of People With Psychosis.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2026Article
- Evaluating a Digital Mental Health Tool for Implementation Into New Zealand's Integrated Primary Mental Health and Addictions Service: Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Determinants of Digital Health Resource Utilization Among Individuals With Self-Reported Bipolar Disorder in Germany-A Cross-Sectional Study Based on the Andersen Model.Bipolar disorders · 2026Article
- Enhancing Care Coordination and Patient Engagement Through Electronic Medical Record Utilization in Primary Healthcare: A Mixed-Methods Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to the Use of Large Language Model-Based Conversational Agents in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Service Users' Views on Digital Remote Monitoring for Psychosis: Survey Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Empowering Quality of Life Monitoring and Self-Management in Bipolar Disorder: Pilot Evaluation of the PolarUs App.Bipolar disorders · 2026Article
- Designing and Evaluating Digital Mental Health Interventions: Scoping Review.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Views of People With Psychosis About Algorithm-Based Relapse Prediction and Data Sharing: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Sustained engagement with a digital youth mental health platform: A mixed-methods study.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- Mental Health Professionals' Perspectives on Digital Remote Monitoring in Services for People with Psychosis.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators to tele-support psychotherapy versus standard in-person mental health services for youth (15-30 Years) with depression in Kampala District, Uganda.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Optimizing SloMo, a Digitally Supported Therapy Targeting Paranoia, for Implementation: Inclusive, Human-Centered Design Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital mental health interventions (DMHIs) to monitor and improve the health of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder show promise; however, user engagement is variable, and integrated clinical use is low.
objectiveThis prospectively registered systematic review examined barriers and facilitators of clinician and patient engagement with DMHIs, to inform implementation within real-world settings.
methodsA systematic search of 7 databases identified empirical studies reporting qualitative or quantitative data about factors affecting staff or patient engagement with DMHIs aiming to monitor or improve the mental or physical health of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to synthesize data on barriers and facilitators, following a best-fit framework synthesis approach.
resultsThe review included 175 papers (150 studies; 11,446 participants) describing randomized controlled trials; surveys; qualitative interviews; and usability, cohort, and case studies. Samples included people with schizophrenia spectrum psychosis (98/150, 65.3% of studies), bipolar disorder (62/150, 41.3% of studies), and clinicians (26/150, 17.3% of studies). Key facilitators were a strong recognition of DMHIs' relative advantages, a clear link between intervention focus and specific patient needs, a simple, low-effort digital interface, human-supported delivery, and device provision where needed. Although staff thought patients would lose, damage, or sell devices, reviewed studies found only 11% device loss. Barriers included intervention complexity, perceived risks, user motivation, discomfort with self-reflection, digital poverty, symptoms of psychosis, poor compatibility with existing clinical workflows, staff and patient fears that DMHIs would replace traditional face-to-face care, infrastructure limitations, and limited financial support for delivery.
conclusionsIdentified barriers and facilitators highlight key considerations for DMHI development and implementation. As to broader implications, sustainable business models are needed to ensure that evidence-based DMHIs are maintained and deployed.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021282871; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=282871.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.