Leonie Hendrikoff1, Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic1, Rüdiger Pryss2, Fanny Senner3, Peter Falkai1, Oliver Pogarell1, Alkomiet Hasan1, Henning Peters4. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Nussbaumstr. 7, 80336, Munich, Germany. 2. Institute of Databases and Information Systems (DBIS), Ulm University, 89081, Ulm, Germany. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Nussbaumstr. 7, 80336, Munich, Germany; Institute of Psychiatric Phenomics and Genomics (IPPG), LMU Munich, Nussbaumstr. 7, 80336, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Nussbaumstr. 7, 80336, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: hpeters@med.lmu.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite numerous mobile health (mHealth) applications available, current impact on mental healthcare is low. Users face overwhelming variety of applications and sensors. Evidence for distinct features' effectiveness is largely lacking. Along with technical feasibility and data security issues, readiness and preferences of patients predetermine engagement and impact of mHealth in psychiatry. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the prospective attitudes of psychiatric patients and mental health professionals (MHP) towards mHealth applications in general and with regard to distinct features. METHODS: We conducted a survey entailing 486 subjects (297 MHP and 189 patients). RESULTS: Professionals and patients indicate both, considerable acceptance and rejection for most features. Marked concerns across groups relate to data security in general. Actimetry and geotracking were considered particularly skeptical. Importantly, most patients prefer to be prompted timely about health status changes. CONCLUSION: Altogether, evidence indicates substantial support for mHealth features in mental healthcare despite considerable rejection of distinct features. We conclude that tighter collaboration between researchers, developers and clinicians must address matching mHealth-apps to patients' needs. Improved information on potential risks and possibilities associated with mHealth features is strongly indicated in MHP and psychiatric patients in order to reach an appropriately informed decision on individual involvement.
BACKGROUND: Despite numerous mobile health (mHealth) applications available, current impact on mental healthcare is low. Users face overwhelming variety of applications and sensors. Evidence for distinct features' effectiveness is largely lacking. Along with technical feasibility and data security issues, readiness and preferences of patientspredetermine engagement and impact of mHealth in psychiatry. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the prospective attitudes of psychiatricpatients and mental health professionals (MHP) towards mHealth applications in general and with regard to distinct features. METHODS: We conducted a survey entailing 486 subjects (297 MHP and 189 patients). RESULTS: Professionals and patients indicate both, considerable acceptance and rejection for most features. Marked concerns across groups relate to data security in general. Actimetry and geotracking were considered particularly skeptical. Importantly, most patients prefer to be prompted timely about health status changes. CONCLUSION: Altogether, evidence indicates substantial support for mHealth features in mental healthcare despite considerable rejection of distinct features. We conclude that tighter collaboration between researchers, developers and clinicians must address matching mHealth-apps to patients' needs. Improved information on potential risks and possibilities associated with mHealth features is strongly indicated in MHP and psychiatricpatients in order to reach an appropriately informed decision on individual involvement.
Authors: Michael Bauer; Tasha Glenn; John Geddes; Michael Gitlin; Paul Grof; Lars V Kessing; Scott Monteith; Maria Faurholt-Jepsen; Emanuel Severus; Peter C Whybrow Journal: Int J Bipolar Disord Date: 2020-01-10
Authors: Suepattra G May; Caroline Huber; Meaghan Roach; Jason Shafrin; Wade Aubry; Darius Lakdawalla; John M Kane; Felicia Forma Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sophie Eis; Oriol Solà-Morales; Andrea Duarte-Díaz; Josep Vidal-Alaball; Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez; Noemí Robles; Carme Carrion Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nidal Drissi; Sofia Ouhbi; Mohammed Abdou Janati Idrissi; Luis Fernandez-Luque; Mounir Ghogho Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 5.428