ArticleJMIR mental health2025
Mental Health Professionals' Technology Usage and Attitudes Toward Digital Health for Psychosis: Comparative Cross-Sectional Survey Study.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs) for psychosis have been developed and tested rapidly in recent years. However, research examining mental health professionals' views on the use of DHTs for people with psychosis is limited. Given the increased accessibility and availability of DHTs for psychosis, an up-to-date understanding of staff perception of DHTs for psychosis is warranted. Objective: In this study, we aimed to investigate mental health professionals' usage of technology and their perception of service users' technology usage; their views toward the use of DHTs for psychosis, including their concerns; and barriers for implementing DHTs in a mental health setting. Methods: Two cross-sectional surveys were distributed to mental health care staff who had experience of working with individuals experiencing psychosis in the United Kingdom. Survey 1 (from April 2018 to September 2020) was distributed to 3 local UK National Health Service (NHS) trusts in Northwest England; survey 2 was administered nationally across 31 UK NHS trusts or health boards (from November 2022 to March 2024). The COVID-19 pandemic occurred between the 2 survey periods. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results: A total of 155 and 352 participants completed surveys 1 and 2, respectively. Staff reported high levels of technology ownership and usage in both surveys. In general, staff expressed positive views regarding the use of DHTs for psychosis; however, barriers and concerns, including affordability, digital literacy, and potential negative effects on service users' mental health, were also reported. We did not find notable changes in terms of staff use of digital technology in clinical practice over time. Conclusions: Staff sampled from a broad and diverse range expressed consistent optimism about the potential implementation of DHTs in practice, though they also noted some concerns regarding safety and access. While the COVID-19 pandemic is frequently regarded as a catalyst for the adoption of digital health care tools, the sustainability of this transition from traditional to digital health care appeared to be suboptimal. To address staff concerns regarding safety and potentially facilitate the implementation of DHTs, systematic evaluation of adverse effects of using DHTs and dissemination of evidence are needed. Organizational support and training should be offered to staff to help address barriers and increase confidence in recommending and using DHTs with service users.
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.