SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Healthcare professionals' perspectives and/or experiences of digital mental health tools in clinical practice: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mental health difficulties are highly prevalent worldwide. Digital mental health tools (DMHTs) have been developed to increase accessibility to mental healthcare for people who may struggle to access care due to cost, location or stigma. As the views of stakeholders are important in understanding the potential barriers to and facilitators of DMHT implementation, the aims of this review were to critically appraise and synthesise qualitative findings relating to the perceptions and/or experiences of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the use of digital mental health tools in clinical practice. Method: A systematic search of mixed-method and qualitative studies was performed using five databases. Eligible studies were quality-assessed. Data were analysed using inductive thematic synthesis. Results: Fifteen studies were identified and reviewed. Four main themes (alongside eight subthemes) were developed from the data of 604 HCPs: Conclusion: HCPs strongly endorsed the view that DMHTs offer increased access to care, however, concerns about their therapeutic quality, risk management, and workload burden persist. Context-sensitive implementation and proper infrastructure are essential for successful integration into mental health services. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42020188879.
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.