Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Making the Case for a Feasible Evaluation Method of Available E-Mental Health Products

  • POINT OF VIEW
  • Published:
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is often difficult for health providers to evaluate available e-mental health products because of the need to balance between obtaining reliable evidence of efficacy and the burdens associated with standard empirical evaluation. This paper makes the case for using a feasible method to investigate available e-mental health programs in order to promote knowledge and increase the uptake of e-mental health products.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aitken, M., & Gauntlett, C. (2013). Patient apps for improved healthcare: From novelty to mainstream. Parsippany. NJ: IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babin, B. J., & Griffin, M. (1998). The nature of satisfaction: An updated examination and analysis. Journal of Business Research, 41(2), 127–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, D., Kazantzis, N., Rickwood, D., & Rickard, N. (2016). Mental health smartphone apps: Review and evidence-based recommendations for future developments. JMIR mental health, 3(1), e7. doi:10.2196/mental.4984.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Baumel, A., Correll, C. U., & Birnbaum, M. (2016). Adaptation of a peer based online emotional support program as an adjunct to treatment for people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Internet Interventions, 4, 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.invent.2016.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumel, A., & Muench, F. (2016). Heuristic evaluation of Ehealth interventions: Establishing standards that relate to the therapeutic process perspective. JMIR Mental Health, 3(1), e5. doi:10.2196/mental.4563.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Baumel, A., & Schueller, S. M. (2016). Adjusting an available online peer support platform in a program to supplement the treatment of perinatal depression and anxiety. JMIR Mental Health, 3(1), e11. doi:10.2196/mental.5335.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zeev, D., Kaiser, S. M., Brenner, C. J., Begale, M., Duffecy, J., & Mohr, D. C. (2013). Development and usability testing of FOCUS: A smartphone system for self-management of schizophrenia. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 36(4), 289–296. doi:10.1037/prj0000019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Boudreaux, E. D., Waring, M. E., Hayes, R. B., Sadasivam, R. S., Mullen, S., & Pagoto, S. (2014). Evaluating and selecting mobile health apps: strategies for healthcare providers and healthcare organizations. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 4(4), 363–371. doi:10.1007/s13142-014-0293-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, H., Griffiths, K. M., & Farrer, L. (2009). Adherence in internet interventions for anxiety and depression: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(2), e13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, H., & Mackinnon, A. (2006). The law of attrition revisited. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(3), e20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, S. L., McGrath, P. J., & Day, V. (2010). Development and usability of an online CBT program for symptoms of moderate depression, anxiety, and stress in post-secondary students. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1419–1426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenbach, G. (2001). What is e-health?. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 3(2), e20. http://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3.2.e20.

  • Eysenbach, G. (2005). The law of attrition. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(1), e11. doi:10.2196/jmir.7.1.e11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Karat, C. (1994). Comparison of user interface evaluation methods. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 203–233). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotronoulas, G., Kearney, N., Maguire, R., Harrow, A., Di Domenico, D., Croy, S., & MacGillivray, S. (2014). What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32(14), 1480–1501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S., Nilsen, W. J., Abernethy, A., Atienza, A., Patrick, K., Pavel, M. et al. (2013). Mobile health technology evaluation: The mHealth evidence workshop. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(2), 228–236. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.017.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, A. M. (2001). Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability Interface, 8(2), 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madan, A., & Dubey, S. K. (2012). Usability evaluation methods: A literature review. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 4(2), 590–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEnzie, N. (1995). Computerised clinical benefit-cost audit of mental health care II: Time input, costs, patient satisfaction. Journal of Mental Health, 4(1), 71–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, D. C., Schueller, S. M., Riley, W. T., Brown, C. H., Cuijpers, P., Duan, N., … Cheung, K. (2015). Trials of intervention principles: Evaluation methods for evolving behavioral intervention technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(7), e166. doi:10.2196/jmir.4391.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • PsyberGuide Website. http://psyberguide.org/. Accessed 10 April 2015. Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6Xh99eQmZ.

  • Reja, U., Manfreda, K. L., Hlebec, V., & Vehovar, V. (2003). Open-ended vs. close-ended questions in web questionnaires. Developments in Applied Statistics, 19, 159–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, C. F., Aaronson, N. K., Choucair, A. K., Elliott, T. E., Greenhalgh, J., Halyard, M. Y., et al. (2012). Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Quality of Life Research, 21(8), 1305–1314. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0054-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stoyanov, S. R., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D. J., Zelenko, O., Tjondronegoro, D., & Mani, M. (2015). Mobile app rating scale: A new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 3(1). doi:10.2196/mhealth.3422.

  • Twomey, C., O’Reilly, G., Byrne, M., Bury, M., White, A., Kissane, S., et al. (2014). A randomized controlled trial of the computerized CBT programme, MoodGYM, for public mental health service users waiting for interventions. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(4), 433–450. doi:10.1111/bjc.12055.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, NY, USA

    Amit Baumel

  2. Zucker Hillside Hospital, The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Glen Oaks, NY, USA

    Amit Baumel

Authors
  1. Amit Baumel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amit Baumel.

Appendix: A Survey Aimed at Eliciting Participants’ Feedback Following Product Demonstration

Appendix: A Survey Aimed at Eliciting Participants’ Feedback Following Product Demonstration

Open-Ended Questions

How would you describe your experience of using this program?

How might the program be made better?

How do you believe this program could complement ongoing treatment?

Closed-Ended Questions (Responses Rated on a Likert Scale)

Usability

I found the program to be accessible and easy to use.

Usefulness

I liked using this service.

I can see how after a certain amount of time using the program people would feel better.

Intention to Use and Recommend

I would like to use this program.

I would recommend this program to people who suffer from my condition.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baumel, A. Making the Case for a Feasible Evaluation Method of Available E-Mental Health Products. Adm Policy Ment Health 45, 1–4 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-016-0764-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-016-0764-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation