Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41225137›Full record

ArticleThe Psychiatric quarterly2025

Adult Digital Mental Health Tool Use From 2019-2022: Findings from the California Health Interview Survey.

Biblia S Cha, Jeongmi Kim, Judith Borghouts, Elizabeth V Eikey, Margaret L Schneider, Stephen M Schueller, Nicole A Stadnick, Kai Zheng, Dana B Mukamel, Dara H Sorkin

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Psychiatric quarterly, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Biblia S ChaDepartment of Medicine, University of California, 100 Theory, Suite 120, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. bibliak@uci.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2589-4202
Jeongmi KimDepartment of Medicine, University of California, 100 Theory, Suite 120, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.
Judith BorghoutsDepartment of Medicine, University of California, 100 Theory, Suite 120, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9716-0147
Elizabeth V EikeyHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3099-8081
Margaret L SchneiderJoe C. Wen School of Population & Public Health, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8314-0732
Stephen M SchuellerDepartment of Informatics, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1003-0399
Nicole A StadnickDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6520-2920
Kai ZhengDepartment of Informatics, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4121-4948
Dana B MukamelDepartment of Medicine, University of California, 100 Theory, Suite 120, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4147-5785
Dara H SorkinDepartment of Medicine, University of California, 100 Theory, Suite 120, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0742-9240

Funding

Institute for Clinical and Translational ScienceUM1TR004927 · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · 2025 to 2025
$4.1M
California Mental Health Service Authority 417-ITS-UCI-2019NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001414NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004927NCRR NIH HHS UL1TR001414
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) provide tools to seek mental health resources, providers, and facilitate and/or complement in-person treatment. Limited research has examined what factors are associated with DMHI uptake. We used California Health Interview Survey data to examine DMHI use among California adults (2019-2022), estimating three multi-variable logistic regression models to assess if DMHI use to seek mental health support (Model 1), connect with mental health professionals (Model 2), and connect with others with similar concerns (Model 3) varied by psychological distress or sociodemographic variables. We used Wald Chi-square statistics tests to examine reasons for not using DMHIs by the same variables. DMHI use to seek mental health support (OR = 1.6) and connect with professionals (OR = 1.4) increased between 2019-2022. High psychological distress individuals used DMHIs for all three outcomes significantly more than low/no distress individuals (Model 1: OR = 14.9; Model 2: OR = 11.9; Model 3: OR = 13.0). The top reason for not using online tools regardless of distress was in-person treatment. The second reasons were low perceived treatment utility (high/medium distress individuals), and low perceived need (low/no distress individuals). Overall, younger, female, more educated, insured, unmarried, and non-Hispanic White participants were more likely to use DMHIs than older, male, less educated, uninsured, married, and Asian counterparts. Adult DMHI use to seek mental health support and professional treatment increased between pre-pandemic and pandemic years. Many respondents who did not use DMHIs sought in-person support. Future research can examine how to increase perceived DMHI efficacy among people with high/medium distress.

Indexed as

Digital mental healthImplementationMental health servicesMHealthService utilization

Identifiers

PMID41225137
PMCPMC13039323

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.