Internet-delivered mental health treatment systems in Scandinavia – A usability evaluation

Mental health problems are a major public health concern worldwide. Approximately 50% of the population will experience mental problems during their life. Traditional treatment is based on psychopharmacotherapy or psychotherapy, with face-to-face interaction between the patient and the therapist. New technologies such as Internet-delivered treatments are seen as an opportunity to offer more scalable and cost-efficient treatments in the field of mental health. Despite the growing interest and new evidence supporting the effect of Internet-delivered treatments is it remarkably little research on how the technology and the usability of Internet-delivered treatment programs affects the treatment. In this paper, we propose a set of evaluation criteria for evaluating the usability and the responsive design of Internet-delivered treatment systems. By our knowledge we are the first to include usability and universal design principles in the evaluation of Internet-delivered treatment systems. Our findings indicate that despite the good treatment results and proven clinical effects, the systems in general have several issues regarding usability, universal design and outdated technology. Based on our findings we propose that there should be established guidelines for testing the usability and technology of Internet-delivered treatment systems.publishedVersio

Developing and evaluating MindMax: promoting mental wellbeing through an Australian Football League-themed app incorporating applied games (including gamification), psychoeducation, and social connectedness

Gamification is increasingly being used as a behavioural change strategy to increase engagement with apps and technologies for mental health and wellbeing. While there is promising evidence supporting the effectiveness of individual gamification elements, there remains little evidence for its overall effectiveness. Furthermore, a lack of consistency in how ‘gamification’ and related terms (such as ‘applied games’, an umbrella term of which gamification is one type) are used has been observed within and across multiple academic fields. This contributes to the difficulty of studying gamification and decreases its accessibility to people unfamiliar with applied games. Finally, gamification has also been critiqued by both game developers and by academics for its reliance on extrinsic motivators and for the messages that gamified systems may unintentionally convey. In this context, the aims of this thesis were fourfold: 1) to iteratively co-design and develop a gamified app for mental health and wellbeing, 2) to evaluate the eventuating app, 3) to consolidate literature on gamification for mental health and wellbeing, and 4) to synthesise findings into practical guidelines for implementing gamification for mental health and wellbeing. Chapter 2 reports the first study which addresses the first aim of this thesis. Six participatory design workshops were conducted to support the development of MindMax, an Australian Football League (AFL)-themed mobile phone app aimed at AFL fans (particularly male ones) that incorporates applied games, psychoeducation, and social connectedness. Findings from these workshops were independently knowledge translated and fed back to the software development team, resulting in a MindMax prototype. This prototype was further tested with 15 one-on-one user experience testing interviews at three separate time points to iteratively refine MindMax’s design and delivery of its content. The findings of this study suggest that broadly, participants endorsed a customisable user experience with activities requiring active user participation. These specifications were reflected in the continual software updates made to MindMax. Chapters 3 and 4 report the second and third studies which address the second aim of this thesis. As regular content, performance, and aesthetic updates were applied to MindMax (following the model of the wider tech industry), a naturalistic longitudinal trial, described in Chapter 3, was deemed to be the most appropriate systematic evaluation method. In this study, participants (n=313) were given access to MindMax and asked to use it at their leisure, and surveys were sent out at multiple time points to assess their wellbeing, resilience, and help-seeking intentions. Increases in flourishing (60-day only), sense of connection to MindMax, and impersonal help-seeking intentions were observed over 30 and 60 days, suggesting that Internet-based interventions like MindMax can contribute to their users’ social connectedness and encourage their help-seeking. The third study, described in Chapter 4, reports a secondary analysis of data collected for Chapter 3, and further explores participants’ help-seeking intentions and their links to wellbeing, resilience, gender, and age. An explanatory factor analysis was conducted on Day 1 General Help-Seeking Questionnaire (GHSQ) data (n=530), with the best fitting solution resulting in three factors: personal sources, health professionals, and distal sources. In addition to providing more evidence that younger people aged 16–35 categorise apps and technologies for mental health and wellbeing like MindMax alongside other distal social sources such as phone helplines and work or school, our findings also suggest that the best way to target individuals who are least likely to seek help, particularly men, may be through these distal sources as well. Chapter 5 reports the fourth study, which addresses the third aim. In order to consolidate literature on gamification for mental health and wellbeing, this systematic review identified 70 papers that collectively reported on 50 apps and technologies for improving mental health and wellbeing. These papers were coded for gamification element, mental health and wellbeing domain, and researchers’ justification for applying gamification to improving mental health and wellbeing. This study resulted in two major findings: first, that the current application of gamification for mental health and wellbeing does not resemble the heavily critiqued mainstream application that relies on extrinsic motivators; and second, that many authors of the reviewed papers provided little or no justification for why they applied gamification to their mental health and wellbeing interventions. While the former finding is encouraging, the latter suggests that the gamification of mental health and wellbeing is not theory-driven, and is a cause for concern. Finally, to address the final aim of this thesis, all study learnings were synthesised into practical guidelines for implementing gamification for mental health and wellbeing. First, it is important to assess the suitability of implementing gamification into the intervention. Second, this implementation should ideally be integrated at a deeper, systemic level, with the explicitly qualified intention to support users, evidence-based processes, and user engagement with these processes. Third, it is important to assess the acceptability of this gamified intervention throughout its development, involving all relevant stakeholders (particularly representative end user populations). Fourth, it is important to evaluate the impact of this gamified intervention. Fifth, and finally, comprehensive and detailed documentation of this process should be provided at all stages of this process. This thesis contributes to a growing literature on the increasing importance and relevance of Internet-based resources and apps and technologies for mental health and wellbeing, particularly for young people. Given the dominance of games in society and culture across history, and the increasing contemporary prominence of digital games (also known as video games) in particular, gamification is uniquely positioned to have the potential to make large contributions to mental health and wellbeing research. In this context, this thesis contributes a systematically derived operationalisation of gamification, an evaluation of a gamified app for mental health and wellbeing, and best practice guidelines for implementing gamification for mental health and wellbeing, thereby providing frameworks that future implementations of gamified mental health and wellbeing interventions and initiatives may find useful

Interaction design and emotional wellbeing

The World Health Organisation has concluded that emotional wellbeing is fundamental to our quality of life. It enables us to experience life as meaningful and is an essential component of social cohesion, peace and stability in the living environment [21]. This workshop will bring together a diverse community to consolidate existing knowledge and identify new opportunities for research on technologies designed to support emotional wellbeing. The workshop will examine uses of technology in mental health settings, but will also consider the importance of emotional needs in physical healthcare and wellbeing more generally. The design of technology to provide social support and to extend traditional care networks will be key workshop themes

Virtual reality and its role in removing the barriers that turn cognitive impairments into intellectual disability

Early expectations of the contribution that virtual reality (VR) could make to education far exceeded actual applications. This was largely due to the initial immaturity of the technology and a lack of evidence base on which to base design and utilisation. While the early developments in computer based learning largely concentrated on mainstream education, leaving those with special needs behind, the potential of VR as an educational tool was exploited for those with intellectual disabilities right from the start. This paper describes the empirical evidence that has contributed to the development of educational virtual reality for those with intellectual disabilities: studies on transfer of learning from the virtual to the real world; how teachers might support those using VR; the design of virtual environments and what input/control devices best facilitate use of desktop VR. Future developments and ethical issues are also considered

Methods and measures used to evaluate patient-operated mobile health interventions:Scoping literature review

Background: Despite the prevalence of mobile health (mHealth) technologies and observations of their impacts on patients’ health, there is still no consensus on how best to evaluate these tools for patient self-management of chronic conditions. Researchers currently do not have guidelines on which qualitative or quantitative factors to measure or how to gather these reliable data. Objective: This study aimed to document the methods and both qualitative and quantitative measures used to assess mHealth apps and systems intended for use by patients for the self-management of chronic noncommunicable diseases. Methods: A scoping review was performed, and PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Research Library were searched for literature published in English between January 1, 2015, and January 18, 2019. Search terms included combinations of the description of the intention of the intervention (eg, self-efficacy and self-management) and description of the intervention platform (eg, mobile app and sensor). Article selection was based on whether the intervention described a patient with a chronic noncommunicable disease as the primary user of a tool or system that would always be available for self-management. The extracted data included study design, health conditions, participants, intervention type (app or system), methods used, and measured qualitative and quantitative data. Results: A total of 31 studies met the eligibility criteria. Studies were classified as either those that evaluated mHealth apps (ie, single devices; n=15) or mHealth systems (ie, more than one tool; n=17), and one study evaluated both apps and systems. App interventions mainly targeted mental health conditions (including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), followed by diabetes and cardiovascular and heart diseases; among the 17 studies that described mHealth systems, most involved patients diagnosed with cardiovascular and heart disease, followed by diabetes, respiratory disease, mental health conditions, cancer, and multiple illnesses. The most common evaluation method was collection of usage logs (n=21), followed by standardized questionnaires (n=18) and ad-hoc questionnaires (n=13). The most common measure was app interaction (n=19), followed by usability/feasibility (n=17) and patient-reported health data via the app (n=15). Conclusions: This review demonstrates that health intervention studies are taking advantage of the additional resources that mHealth technologies provide. As mHealth technologies become more prevalent, the call for evidence includes the impacts on patients’ self-efficacy and engagement, in addition to traditional measures. However, considering the unstructured data forms, diverse use, and various platforms of mHealth, it can be challenging to select the right methods and measures to evaluate mHealth technologies. The inclusion of app usage logs, patient-involved methods, and other approaches to determine the impact of mHealth is an important step forward in health intervention research. We hope that this overview will become a catalogue of the possible ways in which mHealth has been and can be integrated into research practice

Empowerment or Engagement? Digital Health Technologies for Mental Healthcare

We argue that while digital health technologies (e.g. artificial intelligence, smartphones, and virtual reality) present significant opportunities for improving the delivery of healthcare, key concepts that are used to evaluate and understand their impact can obscure significant ethical issues related to patient engagement and experience. Specifically, we focus on the concept of empowerment and ask whether it is adequate for addressing some significant ethical concerns that relate to digital health technologies for mental healthcare. We frame these concerns using five key ethical principles for AI ethics (i.e. autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and explicability), which have their roots in the bioethical literature, in order to critically evaluate the role that digital health technologies will have in the future of digital healthcare

The Prescription Opioid Epidemic: an Evidence-Based Approach

A group of experts, led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, issued this report aimed at stemming the prescription opioid epidemic, a crisis that kills an average of 44 people a day in the U.S. The report calls for changes to the way medical students and physicians are trained, prescriptions are dispensed and monitored, first responders are equipped to treat overdoses, and those with addiction are identified and treated. The report grew out of discussions that began last year at a town hall co-hosted by the Bloomberg School and the Clinton Health Matters Initiative, an initiative of the Clinton Foundation. The recommendations were developed by professionals from medicine, pharmacy, injury prevention and law. Patient representatives, insurers and drug manufacturers also participated in developing the recommendations. The report breaks its recommendations into seven categories:Prescribing GuidelinesPrescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs)Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and PharmaciesEngineering Strategies (i.e., packaging)Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution ProgramsAddiction TreatmentCommunity-Based Prevention Strategie