Service users’ perspectives in the design of an online tool for assisted self-help in mental health: a case study of implications

International Journal of Mental Health Systems

Lillian Sofie Eng²  Monica Strand¹  Deede Gammon² 

[1] Department of Psychiatry Blakstad, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Asker, Norway;Center for Shared Decision-Making and Collaboration Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

关键词: Mental health systems;    Assisted self-help;    Internet;    Community mental health;    Patient involvement;    Community-based participatory research;    Service user involvement;   

Others  :  801329
DOI  :  10.1186/1752-4458-8-2

 received in 2013-12-08, accepted in 2014-01-05,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The involvement of persons with lived experiences of mental illness and service use is increasingly viewed as key to improving the relevance and utility of mental health research and service innovation. Guided by the principles of Community-Based Participatory Research we developed an online tool for assisted self-help in mental health. The resulting tool, PsyConnect, is ready for testing in two communities starting 2014. This case study reports from the design phase which entailed clarifying very basic questions: Who is the primary target group? What are the aims? What functions are priorities? Roles and responsibilities? What types of evidence can legitimize tool design decisions? Here we highlight the views of service users as a basis for discussing implications of user involvement for service design and research.

Case description

PsyConnect has become a tool for those who expect to need assistance over long periods of time regardless of their specific condition(s). The aim is to support service users in gaining greater overview and control, legitimacy, and sense of continuity in relationships. It has a personalized “my control panel” which depicts status → process → goals. Functionality includes support for: mapping life domains; medication overview; crisis management; coping exercises; secure messaging; and social support. While the types of evidence that can legitimize design decisions are scattered and indirectly relevant, recent trends in recovery research will be used to guide further refinements.

Discussion

PsyConnect has undoubtedly become something other than it would have been without careful attention to the views of service users. The tool invites a proactive approach that is likely to challenge treatment cultures that are reactive, disorder-focused and consultation-based. Service user representatives will need to play central roles in training peers and clinicians in order to increase the likelihood of tool usage in line with intentions. Similarly, their influence on tool design has implications for choice of methods for evaluation.

Conclusions

Starting down the path of service user involvement in intervention design fosters commitment to follow through in the remaining implementation and research phases. While this can be time-consuming and less meriting for researchers, it is probably vital to increasing the likelihood of success of person-centered service innovations.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Gammon et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wallcraft J, Schrank B, Amering M: Handbook of service user involvement in mental health research. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
• [2]de Wit M, Abma T, Koelewijn-van Loon M, Collins S, Kirwan J: Involving patient research partners has a significant impact on outcomes research: a responsive evaluation of the international OMERACT conferences. BMJ open 2013., 3(5)
• [3]Mercer SL, Green LW, Cargo M, Potter MA, Daniel M, Olds SR, Reed-Gross E: Reliablility-tested guidelines for assessing participatory research projects. In Community-based participatory research for health: from process to outcomes. 2nd edition. Edited by Minkler M, Wallerstein N. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008:407-433.
• [4]Green LW, Mercer SL: Can public health researchers and agencies reconcile the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities? Am J Public Health 2001, 12:1926-1929.
• [5]Minkler M: Linking science and policy through community-based participatory research to study and address health disparities. Am J Public Health 2010, 100:S81-S87.
• [6]Hilvert-Bruce Z, Rossouw PJ, Wong N, Sunderland M, Andrews G: Adherence as a determinant of effectiveness of internet cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety and depressive disorders. Behav Res Ther 2012, 50(7–8):463-468.
• [7]Depression and anxiety - computerised cognitive behavioural therapy (CCBT) (TA97). http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA97 webcite
• [8]Green LW: Making research relevant: if it is an evidence-based practice, where’s the practice-based evidence? Fam Pract 2008, 25(1):i20-i24.
• [9]Chambers D, Glasgow R, Stange K: The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci 2013, 8(1):117. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Drake RE, Deegan PE, Woltmann E, Haslett W, Drake T, Rapp CA: Comprehensive electronic decision support systems. Psychiatric services (Washington, DC) 2010, 61(7):714-717.
• [11]Lorig K: Living a healthy life with chronic conditions: self-management of heart disease, arthritis, diabetes, depression, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema and other physical and mental health conditions. Boulder, Colo: Bull Publishing; 2012.
• [12]Stein B, Kogan J, Mihalyo M, Schuster J, Deegan P, Sorbero M, Drake R: Use of a computerized medication shared decision making tool in community mental health settings: impact on psychotropic medication adherence. Community Ment Health J 2013, 49(2):185-192.
• [13]Ruland CM, Holte HH, Roislien J, Heaven C, Hamilton GA, Kristiansen J, Sandbaek H, Kvaloy SO, Hasund L, Ellison MC: Effects of a computer-supported interactive tailored patient assessment tool on patient care, symptom distress, and patients’ need for symptom management support: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 2010, 17:403-410.
• [14]Ruland CM, Maffei RM, Børøsund E, Krahn A, Andersen T, Grimsbø GH: Evaluation of different features of an eHealth application for personalized illness management support: cancer patients’ use and appraisal of usefulness. Int J Med Inform 2013, 82(7):593-603.
• [15]Thompson B, Ondelacy S, Godina R, Coronado G: A small grants program to involve communities in research. J Community Health 2010, 35(3):294-301.
• [16]Minkler M, Blackwell AG, Thompson M, Tamir H: Community-based participatory research: implications for public health funding. Am J Public Health 2003, 93(8):1210-1213.
• [17]Wells K, Staunton A, Norris K, Bluthenthal R, Chung B, Gelbarg L, Jones L, Kataoka S, Koegel P, Miranda J, et al.: Council CHIC: building an academic community partnered network for clinical services research: the community health improvement collaborative (CHIC). Ethn Dis 2006, 16:3-17.
• [18]The Norwegian data protection authority. Authority TNDP; 2013. http://www.datatilsynet.no/English/ webcite
• [19]Woltmann EM, Wilkniss SM, Teachout A, McHugo GJ, Drake RE: Trial of an electronic decision support system to facilitate shared decision making in community mental health. Psychiatric services (Washington, DC) 2011, 62(1):54-60.
• [20]Priebe S, McCabe R, Bullenkamp J, Hansson L, Lauber C, Martinez-Leal R, Rossler W, Salize H, Svensson B, Torres-Gonzales F, et al.: Structured patient clinician communication and 1-year outcome in community mental healthcare: cluster randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2007, 191(5):420-426.
• [21]Kahl KG, Winter L, Schweiger U: The third wave of cognitive behavioural therapies: what is new and what is effective? Current opinion in psychiatry 2012, 25(6):522-528.
• [22]Hayes SC, Smith S: Get Out of your mind and into your life: the new acceptance and commitment therapy. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc.; 2005.
• [23]Nolen-Hoeksema S, Watkins ER: A heuristic for developing transdiagnostic models of psychopathology: explaining multifinality and divergent trajectories. Perspect Psychol Sci 2011, 6(6):589-609.
• [24]Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K: Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. JAMA 2002, 288(14):1775-1779.
• [25]Coulter A, Ellins J: Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. BMJ 2007, 335:24-27.
• [26]Sklar M, Groessl EJ, O’Connell M, Davidson L, Aarons GA: Instruments for measuring mental health recovery: a systematic review. Clin Psychol Rev 2013, 33(8):1082-1095.
• [27]Deegan PE, Drake RE: Shared decision making and medication management in the recovery process. Psychiatric services (Washington, DC) 2006, 57:1636-1639.
• [28]Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA): SAMHSA’s working definition of recovery. USA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2012.
• [29]Wangberg SC, Bergmo TS, Johnsen JAK: Adherence in internet-based interventions. Patient Preference and Adherence 2008, 2:57-65.
• [30]Population statistics. http://www.ssb.no webcite