Peter W Tuerk1,2, Cindy M Schaeffer3, Joseph F McGuire4,5, Margo Adams Larsen6, Nicole Capobianco7, John Piacentini5. 1. Sheila C. Johnson Center for Clinical Services, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. pwt3g@virginia.edu. 2. Department of Human Services, University of Virginia, 417 Emmet St. South, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA. pwt3g@virginia.edu. 3. Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Maryland-Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Research Division, Virtually Better Inc., Decatur, GA, USA. 7. Department of Human Services, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We provide a critical review of digital technologies in evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for mental health with a focus on the functions technologies are intended to serve. The review highlights issues related to clarity of purpose, usability, and assumptions related to EBT technology integration, branding, and packaging. RECENT FINDINGS: Developers continue to use technology in creative ways, often combining multiple functions to convey existing EBTs or to create new technology-enabled EBTs. Developers have a strong preference for creating and investigating whole-source, branded solutions related to specific EBTs, in comparison to developing or investigating technology tools related to specific components of behavior change, or developing specific clinical protocols that can be delivered via existing technologies. Default assumptions that new applications are required for each individual EBT, that EBTs are best served by the use of only one technology solution rather than multiple tools, and that an EBT-specific technology product should include or convey all portions of an EBT slow scientific progress and increase risk of usability issues that negatively impact uptake. We contend that a purposeful, functions-based approach should guide the selection, development, and application of technology in support of EBT delivery.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We provide a critical review of digital technologies in evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for mental health with a focus on the functions technologies are intended to serve. The review highlights issues related to clarity of purpose, usability, and assumptions related to EBT technology integration, branding, and packaging. RECENT FINDINGS: Developers continue to use technology in creative ways, often combining multiple functions to convey existing EBTs or to create new technology-enabled EBTs. Developers have a strong preference for creating and investigating whole-source, branded solutions related to specific EBTs, in comparison to developing or investigating technology tools related to specific components of behavior change, or developing specific clinical protocols that can be delivered via existing technologies. Default assumptions that new applications are required for each individual EBT, that EBTs are best served by the use of only one technology solution rather than multiple tools, and that an EBT-specific technology product should include or convey all portions of an EBT slow scientific progress and increase risk of usability issues that negatively impact uptake. We contend that a purposeful, functions-based approach should guide the selection, development, and application of technology in support of EBT delivery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital; Evidence-based treatment; Mental health; Mobile applications; Telehealth; eHealth
Authors: Christopher Archangeli; F Alethea Marti; Emilia Antonievna Wobga-Pasiah; Bonnie Zima Journal: Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am Date: 2016-10-18
Authors: Myrthe L Tielman; Mark A Neerincx; Rafael Bidarra; Ben Kybartas; Willem-Paul Brinkman Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Anke Versluis; Bart Verkuil; Philip Spinhoven; Melanie M van der Ploeg; Jos F Brosschot Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 5.428