Jake Linardon1, Mariel Messer2, Sohee Lee3, John Rosato2. 1. School of Psychology, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. Jake.linardon@deakin.edu.au. 2. School of Psychology, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. 3. Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Digital interventions that consider end-user needs, preferences, and concerns may address suboptimal rates of e-health uptake, usage, and engagement. We explored target-user perspectives of e-health treatment and prevention programs for eating disorders (EDs), with a focus on investigating (1) perceived advantages and barriers of e-health; (2) help-seeking intentions; and (3) preferences for different digital functionality, device types, and content-delivery formats. METHODS: Survey data were analysed from 722 community-based participants. Participants were categorized into one of four groups based on symptom presentation and severity, ranging from low risk to probable bulimia nervosa or binge-eating disorder. RESULTS: e-health advantages that received the highest endorsement (~ 84%) were "always there in times of need" and "travel not required". e-health barriers that received the highest endorsement (~ 50%) were concerns about data privacy and the accuracy of content presented. Nearly three-quarters reported an intention to use an e-health platform for preventing or treating EDs. Preference ratings were highest for programs to be available on all digital devices (relative to restricting the program to one type of device) and for content to be presented via graphics and video tutorials (rather than audio-based). e-health functionality that received highest preference ratings (~ 80%) were added clinician support, tailored feedback, strategies to change unhelpful ED thoughts, screening scales to assess symptoms, ED psychoeducation, and just-in-time intervention prompts. Preference and intention ratings were strikingly similar across all subgroups. CONCLUSION: Findings may inform the development and design of e-health platforms that meet the needs of people at different stages of an ED. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, cross-sectional descriptive study.
PURPOSE: Digital interventions that consider end-user needs, preferences, and concerns may address suboptimal rates of e-health uptake, usage, and engagement. We explored target-user perspectives of e-health treatment and prevention programs for eating disorders (EDs), with a focus on investigating (1) perceived advantages and barriers of e-health; (2) help-seeking intentions; and (3) preferences for different digital functionality, device types, and content-delivery formats. METHODS: Survey data were analysed from 722 community-based participants. Participants were categorized into one of four groups based on symptom presentation and severity, ranging from low risk to probable bulimia nervosa or binge-eating disorder. RESULTS: e-health advantages that received the highest endorsement (~ 84%) were "always there in times of need" and "travel not required". e-health barriers that received the highest endorsement (~ 50%) were concerns about data privacy and the accuracy of content presented. Nearly three-quarters reported an intention to use an e-health platform for preventing or treating EDs. Preference ratings were highest for programs to be available on all digital devices (relative to restricting the program to one type of device) and for content to be presented via graphics and video tutorials (rather than audio-based). e-health functionality that received highest preference ratings (~ 80%) were added clinician support, tailored feedback, strategies to change unhelpful ED thoughts, screening scales to assess symptoms, ED psychoeducation, and just-in-time intervention prompts. Preference and intention ratings were strikingly similar across all subgroups. CONCLUSION: Findings may inform the development and design of e-health platforms that meet the needs of people at different stages of an ED. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, cross-sectional descriptive study.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital health; Eating disorders; Prevention; Treatment; e-health
Authors: Liesje Donkin; Helen Christensen; Sharon L Naismith; Bruce Neal; Ian B Hickie; Nick Glozier Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Christina E Loucas; Christopher G Fairburn; Craig Whittington; Mary E Pennant; Sarah Stockton; Tim Kendall Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2014-10-05
Authors: Joseph Tighe; Fiona Shand; Rebecca Ridani; Andrew Mackinnon; Nicole De La Mata; Helen Christensen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: John Torous; Sandra Bucci; Imogen H Bell; Lars V Kessing; Maria Faurholt-Jepsen; Pauline Whelan; Andre F Carvalho; Matcheri Keshavan; Jake Linardon; Joseph Firth Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Gabriela Marcu; Steven J Ondersma; Allison N Spiller; Brianna M Broderick; Reema Kadri; Lorraine R Buis Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Anne-Charlotte Wiberg; Ata Ghaderi; Hanna Broberg Danielsson; Kousha Safarzadeh; Thomas Parling; Per Carlbring; Magdalena Jansson; Elisabeth Welch Journal: Internet Interv Date: 2022-08-30