Evidence mapPaperPMID 39832352Full record

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.

Emily Eisner, Sophie Faulkner, Stephanie Allan, Hannah Ball, Daniela Di Basilio, Jennifer Nicholas, Aansha Priyam, Paul Wilson, Xiaolong Zhang, Sandra Bucci

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Emily EisnerDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5164-2407
Sophie FaulknerDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1549-0922
Stephanie AllanSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1016-0708
Hannah BallDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1178-5080
Daniela Di BasilioDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3786-442X
Jennifer NicholasCentre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1889-1107
Aansha PriyamDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6162-5914
Paul WilsonDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2657-5780
Xiaolong ZhangDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2964-0485
Sandra BucciDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6197-5333

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bipolar DisorderMental Health ServicesPatient ParticipationPsychotic DisordersTelemedicineHumansbipolardigitalmobile phonePRISMApsychosisschizophreniasmartphonewearable

Identifiers

PMID39832352
PMCPMC11791459

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.