Suppr超能文献

比较心理健康应用程序的专业评级与用户评级:混合方法研究。

Comparing Professional and Consumer Ratings of Mental Health Apps: Mixed Methods Study.

作者信息

Hudson Georgie, Negbenose Esther, Neary Martha, Jansli Sonja M, Schueller Stephen M, Wykes Til, Jilka Sagar

机构信息

Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

JMIR Form Res. 2022 Sep 23;6(9):e39813. doi: 10.2196/39813.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

As the number of mental health apps has grown, increasing efforts have been focused on establishing quality tailored reviews. These reviews prioritize clinician and academic views rather than the views of those who use them, particularly those with lived experiences of mental health problems. Given that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased reliance on web-based and mobile mental health support, understanding the views of those with mental health conditions is of increasing importance.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to understand the opinions of people with mental health problems on mental health apps and how they differ from established ratings by professionals.

METHODS

A mixed methods study was conducted using a web-based survey administered between December 2020 and April 2021, assessing 11 mental health apps. We recruited individuals who had experienced mental health problems to download and use 3 apps for 3 days and complete a survey. The survey consisted of the One Mind PsyberGuide Consumer Review Questionnaire and 2 items from the Mobile App Rating Scale (star and recommendation ratings from 1 to 5). The consumer review questionnaire contained a series of open-ended questions, which were thematically analyzed and using a predefined protocol, converted into binary (positive or negative) ratings, and compared with app ratings by professionals and star ratings from app stores.

RESULTS

We found low agreement between the participants' and professionals' ratings. More than half of the app ratings showed disagreement between participants and professionals (198/372, 53.2%). Compared with participants, professionals gave the apps higher star ratings (3.58 vs 4.56) and were more likely to recommend the apps to others (3.44 vs 4.39). Participants' star ratings were weakly positively correlated with app store ratings (r=0.32, P=.01). Thematic analysis found 11 themes, including issues of user experience, ease of use and interactivity, privacy concerns, customization, and integration with daily life. Participants particularly valued certain aspects of mental health apps, which appear to be overlooked by professional reviewers. These included functions such as the ability to track and measure mental health and providing general mental health education. The cost of apps was among the most important factors for participants. Although this is already considered by professionals, this information is not always easily accessible.

CONCLUSIONS

As reviews on app stores and by professionals differ from those by people with lived experiences of mental health problems, these alone are not sufficient to provide people with mental health problems with the information they desire when choosing a mental health app. App rating measures must include the perspectives of mental health service users to ensure ratings represent their priorities. Additional work should be done to incorporate the features most important to mental health service users into mental health apps.

摘要

背景

随着心理健康应用程序数量的增加,人们越来越致力于开展高质量的针对性评价。这些评价优先考虑临床医生和学术观点,而非应用程序使用者的观点,尤其是那些有心理健康问题亲身经历的人。鉴于新冠疫情增加了对基于网络和移动心理健康支持的依赖,了解有心理健康状况者的观点变得越发重要。

目的

本研究旨在了解有心理健康问题的人对心理健康应用程序的看法,以及这些看法与专业人员给出的既定评分有何不同。

方法

采用混合方法研究,于2020年12月至2021年4月期间通过网络调查评估11款心理健康应用程序。我们招募有心理健康问题经历的个体下载并使用3款应用程序,为期3天,并完成一项调查。该调查包括“一心”心理指南消费者评价问卷以及移动应用程序评分量表中的2项内容(1至5星评分和推荐评分)。消费者评价问卷包含一系列开放式问题,对这些问题进行主题分析,并使用预定义方案将其转换为二元(正面或负面)评分,然后与专业人员给出的应用程序评分以及应用商店的星级评分进行比较。

结果

我们发现参与者评分与专业人员评分之间的一致性较低。超过一半的应用程序评分显示参与者与专业人员之间存在分歧(198/372,53.2%)。与参与者相比,专业人员给应用程序的星级评分更高(3.58 vs 4.56),并且更有可能向他人推荐这些应用程序(3.44 vs 4.39)。参与者的星级评分与应用商店评分呈弱正相关(r = 0.32,P = 0.01)。主题分析发现了11个主题,包括用户体验、易用性和交互性、隐私问题、定制以及与日常生活的整合等问题。参与者特别重视心理健康应用程序的某些方面,而这些方面似乎被专业评审人员忽视了。这些方面包括诸如跟踪和测量心理健康状况的能力以及提供一般心理健康教育等功能。应用程序的成本是参与者最重要的因素之一。尽管专业人员已经考虑到这一点,但这些信息并非总是容易获取。

结论

由于应用商店和专业人员给出的评价与有心理健康问题亲身经历的人的评价不同,仅这些评价不足以在有心理健康问题的人选择心理健康应用程序时为他们提供所需信息。应用程序评分措施必须纳入心理健康服务使用者的观点,以确保评分反映他们的优先考虑事项。应开展更多工作,将对心理健康服务使用者最重要的功能纳入心理健康应用程序中。

相似文献

1
Comparing Professional and Consumer Ratings of Mental Health Apps: Mixed Methods Study.
JMIR Form Res. 2022 Sep 23;6(9):e39813. doi: 10.2196/39813.
3
mHealth Solutions for Mental Health Screening and Diagnosis: A Review of App User Perspectives Using Sentiment and Thematic Analysis.
Front Psychiatry. 2022 Apr 27;13:857304. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.857304. eCollection 2022.
5
What Do People Want in a Smoking Cessation App? An Analysis of User Reviews and App Quality.
Nicotine Tob Res. 2022 Feb 1;24(2):169-177. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntab174.
6
A large scale analysis of mHealth app user reviews.
Empir Softw Eng. 2022;27(7):196. doi: 10.1007/s10664-022-10222-6. Epub 2022 Oct 12.
7
Quality of Physical Activity Apps: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Jun 9;9(6):e22587. doi: 10.2196/22587.
10
A process for reviewing mental health apps: Using the One Mind PsyberGuide Credibility Rating System.
Digit Health. 2021 Oct 29;7:20552076211053690. doi: 10.1177/20552076211053690. eCollection 2021 Jan-Dec.

本文引用的文献

1
Do young men and women differ in well-being apps usage? Findings from a randomised trial.
Health Informatics J. 2022 Jan-Mar;28(1):14604582211064825. doi: 10.1177/14604582211064825.
3
A process for reviewing mental health apps: Using the One Mind PsyberGuide Credibility Rating System.
Digit Health. 2021 Oct 29;7:20552076211053690. doi: 10.1177/20552076211053690. eCollection 2021 Jan-Dec.
4
Can a meditation app help my sleep? A cross-sectional survey of Calm users.
PLoS One. 2021 Oct 22;16(10):e0257518. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257518. eCollection 2021.
6
Assessing mental health apps marketplaces with objective metrics from 29,190 data points from 278 apps.
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2021 Aug;144(2):201-210. doi: 10.1111/acps.13306. Epub 2021 Apr 29.
7
Technological prescription: evaluation of the effectiveness of mobile applications to improve depression and anxiety. Systematic review.
Inform Health Soc Care. 2021 Sep 2;46(3):273-290. doi: 10.1080/17538157.2021.1887196. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
8
Perceptions and Opinions of Patients About Mental Health Chatbots: Scoping Review.
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jan 13;23(1):e17828. doi: 10.2196/17828.
9
State of the Field of Mental Health Apps.
Cogn Behav Pract. 2018 Nov;25(4):531-537. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.01.002. Epub 2018 Mar 5.
10
Mental Health During COVID-19 Lockdown in the United Kingdom.
Psychosom Med. 2021 May 1;83(4):328-337. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000871.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验