ReviewInternational journal of mental health systems2025
Proof of concept studies in mental health systems research: strategy and steps.
Review in International journal of mental health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structuring Digital Mental Health Care Navigation: Co-Design Nominal Group Technique Study to Develop the MChart Definition and Typology of the Characteristics of Digital Mental Health Care Navigation Tools.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Developing "De-stress pain," an intervention to reduce chronic pain-related distress: Proof of concept and qualitative assessment of acceptability.British journal of pain · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe implementation of interventions, digital tools, and policy plans in health systems research is highly complex. Proof-of-Concept (PoC) studies facilitate the development of these applications although they are rarely conducted or reported in mental health research. This paper describes the principles and processes to conduct PoC studies in mental health systems research.
methodThe Technology Readiness Level in Implementation Sciences (TRL-IS) serves as the reference framework for this study. A 'lessons learned' process was applied to refine the concepts and develop a research strategy based on previous experiences with PoC studies. This process incorporated insights gained from a scoping review, case studies and discussion with both a core group and an extended group of experts.
resultsPoC studies assess the workability of an application, formulating the basic concept and determining whether its functionality can be transformed into a real prototype to be tested as intended via a pilot study and later demonstrated in the real world. The strategy to conduct PoC studies should be part of the analysis of readiness of any application in health system's research. The first four levels of readiness in the TRL-IS scale include (1) foundational knowledge, (2) formalised prior knowledge base, (3) completion of a workable PoC, and (4) prototyping. It's design requires input from experts in all four levels. Twenty-three main elements relevant to PoC have been identified in these four phases. DISCUSSION: PoC is generally omitted (or not reported) in mental health systems research. Researchers should be actively encouraged to overcome this omission. A common language, classification and vocabulary is needed for implementation science which incorporate this domain. The description of the specific activities conducive to PoC and prototyping should be provided. Training on the use of the TRL-IS framework including expert knowledge should also be promoted in mental health system research.
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.