Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Systematic review

Pediatric eMental healthcare technologies: a systematic review of implementation foci in research studies, and government and organizational documents

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Researchers, healthcare planners, and policymakers convey a sense of urgency in using eMental healthcare technologies to improve pediatric mental healthcare availability and access. Yet, different stakeholders may focus on different aspects of implementation. We conducted a systematic review to identify implementation foci in research studies and government/organizational documents for eMental healthcare technologies for pediatric mental healthcare.

Methods

A search of eleven electronic databases and grey literature was conducted. We included research studies and documents from organization and government websites if the focus included eMental healthcare technology for children/adolescents (0–18 years), and implementation was studied and reported (research studies) or goals/recommendations regarding implementation were made (documents). We assessed study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and document quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II. Implementation information was grouped according to Proctor and colleagues’ implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability—and grouped separately for studies and documents.

Results

Twenty research studies and nine government/organizational documents met eligibility criteria. These articles represented implementation of eMental healthcare technologies in the USA (14 studies), United Kingdom (2 documents, 3 studies), Canada (2 documents, 1 study), Australia (4 documents, 1 study), New Zealand (1 study), and the Netherlands (1 document). The quality of research studies was excellent (n = 11), good (n = 6), and poor (n = 1). These eMental health studies focused on the acceptability (70%, n = 14) and appropriateness (50%, n = 10) of eMental healthcare technologies to users and mental healthcare professionals. The quality of government and organizational documents was high (n = 2), medium (n = 6), and low (n = 1). These documents focused on cost (100%, n = 9), penetration (89%, n = 8), feasibility (78%, n = 7), and sustainability (67%, n = 6) of implementing eMental healthcare technology.

Conclusion

To date, research studies have largely focused on acceptability and appropriateness, while government/organizational documents state goals and recommendations regarding costs, feasibility, and sustainability of eMental healthcare technologies. These differences suggest that the research evidence available for pediatric eMental healthcare technologies does not reflect the focus of governments and organizations. Partnerships between researchers, healthcare planners, and policymakers may help to align implementation research with policy development, decision-making, and funding foci.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
Polanczyk GV, Salum GA, Sugaya LS, Caye A, Rohde LA. Annual research review: a meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015;56(3):345–65. doi:10.​1111/​jcpp.​12381.PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
7.
8.
Hickie IB, McGorry PD. Increased access to evidence-based primary mental health care: will the implementation match the rhetoric? Med J Aust. 2007;187(2):100–3.PubMed
9.
10.
Christensen H, Hickie IB. E-mental health: a new era in delivery of mental health services. Med J Aust. 2010;192(11 Suppl):S2–3.PubMed
11.
Christensen H, Hickie IB. Using e-health applications to deliver new mental health services. Med J Aust. 2010;192(11 Suppl):S53–6.PubMed
12.
13.
Boydell KM, Hodgins M, Pignatiello A, Teshima J, Edwards H, Willis D. Using technology to deliver mental health services to children and youth: a scoping review. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014;23(2):87–99.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
15.
16.
Struthers A, Charette C, Bapuji SB, et al. The acceptability of e-mental health services for children, adolescents, and young adults: a systematic search and review. Can J Commun Ment Health. 2015;34(2):1. doi:10.​7870/​cjcmh-2015-006.CrossRef
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Torrey WC, Bond GR, McHugo GJ, Swain K. Evidence-based practice implementation in community mental health settings: the relative importance of key domains of implementation activity. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2012;39(5):353–64. doi:10.​1007/​s10488-011-0357-9.PubMedCrossRef
25.
26.
27.
Southam-Gerow MA, Rodriguez A, Chorpita BF, Daleiden EL. Dissemination and implementation of evidence based treatments for youth: challenges and recommendations. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2012;43(5):527–34.CrossRef
28.
Stanhope V, Tuchman E, Sinclair W. The implementation of mental health evidence based practices from the educator, clinician and researcher perspective. Clin Soc Work J. 2011;39(4):369–78. doi:10.​1007/​s10615-010-0309-y.CrossRef
29.
Altman D. Practical statistics for medical research. London, UK: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
30.
Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37(5):360–3.PubMed
31.
Pluye P, Robert E, Cargo M, et al. A mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed studies reviews. Montreal: McGill University; 2011. p. 1–8.
32.
33.
Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182(18):E839–42. doi:10.​1503/​cmaj.​090449.CrossRef
34.
35.
Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC methods programme. 2006.
36.
Crabtree B, Miller W. A template approach to text analysis: developing and using codebooks. In: Miller WL, editor. Doing qualitative research: research methods for primary care. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1992. p. 93–109.
37.
38.
39.
National Collaborting Centre for Mental Health. E-therapies systematic review for children and young people with mental health problems: National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health; MindEd E-portal Consortium; 2014. https://​www.​minded.​org.​uk. Accessed 13 Jan 2016.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
Branson CE, Clemmey P, Mukherjee P. Text message reminders to improve outpatient therapy attendance among adolescents: a pilot study. Psychol Serv. 2013;10(3):298–303. doi:10.​1037/​a0026693.PubMedCrossRef
47.
John R, Buschman P, Chaszar M, Honig J, Mendonca E, Bakken S. Development and evaluation of a PDA-based decision support system for pediatric depression screening. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(2):1382–6.PubMed
48.
49.
50.
Eisen JC, Marko-Holguin M, Fogel J, et al. Pilot study of implementation of an internet-based depression prevention intervention (CATCH-IT) for adolescents in 12 US primary care practices: clinical and management/organizational behavioral perspectives. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2013;15(6). doi:10.​4088/​PCC.​10m01065
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
Salloum A, Crawford EA, Lewin AB, Storch EA. Consumers’ and providers’ perceptions of utilizing a computer-assisted cognitive behavioral therapy for childhood anxiety. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2015;43(01):31–41. doi:10.​1017/​S135246581300064​7.PubMedCrossRef
57.
58.
Horwitz SM, Hoagwood KE, Garner A, et al. No technological innovation is a panacea: a case series in quality improvement for primary care mental health services. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2008;47(7):685–92. doi:10.​1177/​0009922808315215​.CrossRef
59.
Pretorius N, Rowlands L, Ringwood S, Schmidt U. Young people’s perceptions of and reasons for accessing a web-based cognitive behavioural intervention for bulimia nervosa. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2010;18(3):197–206. doi:10.​1002/​erv.​985.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Hanley T. Developing youth-friendly online counselling services in the United Kingdom: a small scale investigation into the views of practitioners. J Psycol Psychother Res. 2006;6(3):182–5. doi:10.​1080/​1473314060085753​5.
61.
62.
Hetrick SE, Dellosa MK, Simmons MB, Phillips L. Development and pilot testing of an online monitoring tool of depression symptoms and side effects for young people being treated for depression. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2015;9(1):66–9. doi:10.​1111/​eip.​12127.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Ahmad F, Norman C, O’Campo P. What is needed to implement a computer-assisted health risk assessment tool? An exploratory concept mapping study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:149-. doi:10.​1186/​1472-6947-12-149
64.
Merry SN, Stasiak K, Shepherd M, Frampton C, Fleming T, Lucassen MF. The effectiveness of SPARX, a computerised self help intervention for adolescents seeking help for depression: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. BMJ. 2012;344:e2598. doi:10.​1136/​bmj.​e2598.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
65.
66.
67.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Bate P, Macfarlane F, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in health service organisations: a systematic literature review. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
68.
69.
70.
Peters DH, Tran NT, Adam T. Implementation research in health: a practical guide. Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization; 2013.
71.
72.
Dixon BE, Zafar A, McGowan JJ. Development of a taxonomy for health information technology. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(2):616–20.PubMed
73.
74.
75.
Johnson K, Hays C, Center H, Daley C. Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: a sustainability planning model. Eval Program Plann. 2004;27(2):135–49.CrossRef
76.
Turner KM, Sanders MR. Dissemination of evidence-based parenting and family support strategies: learning from the Triple P—Positive Parenting Program system approach. Aggress Violent Behav. 2006;11(2):176–93.CrossRef
77.
78.
Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
79.
80.
Metadata
Title
Pediatric eMental healthcare technologies: a systematic review of implementation foci in research studies, and government and organizational documents
Publication date
01-12-2017
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0608-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Implementation Science 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Are general and strategic measures of organizational context and leadership associated with knowledge and attitudes toward evidence-based practices in public behavioral health settings? A cross-sectional observational study

Research

The impact of a physician detailing and sampling program for generic atorvastatin: an interrupted time series analysis

Research

A content analysis of dissemination and implementation science resource initiatives: what types of resources do they offer to advance the field?

Research

Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures

Research

Improving the production of applied health research findings: insights from a qualitative study of operational research

Study protocol

Implementing the teen marijuana check-up in schools—a study protocol