Paving the Way to Successful Implementation: Identifying Key Barriers to Use of Technology-Based Therapeutic Tools for Behavioral Health Care

  • Alex Ramsey
  • Sarah Lord
  • John Torrey
  • Lisa Marsch
  • Michael Lardiere
Article

Abstract

This study aimed to identify barriers to use of technology for behavioral health care from the perspective of care decision makers at community behavioral health organizations. As part of a larger survey of technology readiness, 260 care decision makers completed an open-ended question about perceived barriers to use of technology. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), qualitative analyses yielded barrier themes related to characteristics of technology (e.g., cost and privacy), potential end users (e.g., technology literacy and attitudes about technology), organization structure and climate (e.g., budget and infrastructure), and factors external to organizations (e.g., broadband accessibility and reimbursement policies). Number of reported barriers was higher among respondents representing agencies with lower annual budgets and smaller client bases relative to higher budget, larger clientele organizations. Individual barriers were differentially associated with budget, size of client base, and geographic location. Results are discussed in light of implementation science frameworks and proactive strategies to address perceived obstacles to adoption and use of technology-based behavioral health tools.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research study was supported by NIDA 1P30DA029926-01. The preparation of this manuscript was partially supported by NIMH T32 MH019960.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

References

  1. 1.
    Chiauzzi E, Green TC, Lord S, et al. My Student Body: A high-risk drinking prevention web site for college students. Journal of American College Health 2005;53:263–274.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lord S, D’Amante D, Meyers S, et al. Connecting to prevention: Efficacy of an online alcohol and other drug prevention program for early adolescents. Paper presentation, Society for Adolescent Health, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marsch L, Bickel W, Badger G. Applying computer technology to substance abuse prevention science: Results of a preliminary examination. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse 2006; 16(2): 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ben-Zeev D. Mobile technologies in the study, assessment, and treatment of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin 2012; 38(3): 384–385. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbr179 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lord SE, Trudeau KJ, Black RA, et al. CHAT: development and validation of a computer-delivered, self-report, substance use assessment for adolescents. Substance Use & Misuse 2011;46(6):781–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brunette MF, Ferron JC, McHugo GJ, et al. An electronic decision support system to motivate people with severe mental illnesses to quit smoking. Psychiatric Services 2011;62(4):360–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carroll KM, Ball SA, Martino S, et al. Enduring effects of a computer-assisted training program for cognitive behavioral therapy: a 6-month follow-up of CBT4CBT. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2009;100(1–2):178–181.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dallery J, Raiff BR. Contingency management in the 21st century: Technological innovations to promote smoking cessation. Substance Use & Misuse 2011;46(1):10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marsch LA, Grabinski MJ, Bickel WK, et al. Computer-assisted HIV prevention for youth with substance use disorders. Substance Use & Misuse 2011; 46(1): 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Proudfoot J, Goldberg D, Mann A, et al. Computerized, interactive, multimedia cognitive-behavioural program for anxiety and depression in general practice. Psychological Medicine 2003; 33(2): 217–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Krieke L, Wunderink L, Emerencia AC, et al. E-mental health self-management for psychotic disorders: State of the art and future perspectives. Psychiatric Services 2014; 65(1): 33–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gustafson DH, Boyle MG, Shaw BR, et al. An e-Health solution for people with alcohol problems. Alcohol Research & Health 2011; 33(4): 327–337.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newman MG, Szkodny LE, Llera SJ, et al. A review of technology-assisted self-help and minimal contact therapies for anxiety and depression: is human contact necessary for therapeutic efficacy? Clinical Psychology Review 2011;31(1):89–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Preziosa A, Grassi A, Gaggioli A, et al. Therapeutic Applications of the mobile phone. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 2009; 37(3): 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marsch LA. Leveraging technology to enhance addiction treatment and recovery. Journal of Addictive Diseases 2012; 31(3): 313–318.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barak A, Hen L, Boniel-Nissim M, et al. A comprehensive review and a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of Internet-based psychotherapeutic interventions. Journal of Technology in Human Services 2008; 26(2–4): 109–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Noar SM, Black HG, Pierce LB. Efficacy of computer technology-based HIV prevention interventions: a meta-analysis AIDS. 2009; 23(1): 107–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pating DR, Miller MM, Goplerud E, et al. New systems of care for substance use disorders: treatment, finance, and technology under health care reform. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 2012; 35(2): 327–356.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harris Interactive. Patient Choice an Increasingly Important Factor in the Age of the “Healthcare Consumer”. Available at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/1074/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx. Accessed March 10, 2013.
  20. 20.
    Ben-Zeev D, Davis KE, Kaiser S, et al. Mobile technologies among people with serious mental illness: opportunities for future services. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 2013; 40(4): 340–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pew Internet & American Life Project. Pew Internet: Health. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/Commentary/2011/November/Pew-Internet-Health.aspx. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  22. 22.
    Ennis L, Rose D, Callard F, et al. Rapid progress or lengthy process? Electronic personal health records in mental health. BMC Psychiatry 2011; 11: 117.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goldzweig CL, Towfigh A, Maglione M, et al. Costs and benefits of health information technology: new trends from the literature. Health Affairs 2009; 28(2): 282–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Takian A, Sheikh A, Barber N. We are bitter, but we are better off: case study of the implementation of an electronic health record system into a mental health hospital in England. BMC Health Services Research 2012; 12: 484.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Buti AL, Eakins D, Fussell H, et al. Clinician attitudes, social norms and intentions to use a computer-assisted intervention. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2013; 44(4): 433–437.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mohr DC, Burns MN, Schueller SM, et al. Behavioral intervention technologies: Evidence review and recommendations for future research in mental health. General Hospital Psychiatry 2013.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science 2009; 4(1): 50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rogers E. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. New York, NY: Free Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, et al. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly 2004; 82(4): 581–629.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Molfenter T, Capoccia VA, Boyle MG, et al. The readiness of addiction treatment agencies for health care reform. Substance Abuse Treatment Prevention and Policy 2012; 7:16.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    California State Rural Health Association. Rural Providers and eHealth: The Future is Now. Sacramento, CA, 2010.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lehman WE, Greener JM, Simpson DD. Assessing organizational readiness for change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2002; 22(4): 197–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2010; 43(1): 159–172.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Andrews M. ‘Who is being heard? Response bias in open-ended responses in a large government employee survey.’ Public Opinion Quarterly 2004; 69: 3760–3766.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Olson DE. Agency theory in the not-for-profit sector: Its role at independent colleges. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 2000; 29(2): 280–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 2005; 15: 1277–1288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2006.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    McAlearney AS, Schweikhart SB, Medow MA. Organizational and physician perspectives about facilitating handheld computer use in clinical practice: results of a cross-site qualitative study. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2005; 12(5): 568–575.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Blaya JA, Fraser HS, Holt B. E-health technologies show promise in developing countries. Health Affairs 2010; 29(2): 244–251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Burns LR, Pauly MV. Accountable care organizations may have difficulty avoiding the failures of integrated delivery networks of the 1990s. Health Affairs 2012; 31(11): 2407–2416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Aarons GA, Glisson C, Green PD, et al. The organizational social context of mental health services and clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice: A United States national study. Implementation Science 2012; 7: 56.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health 2011; 38(2): 65–76.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Behavioral Health 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex Ramsey
    • 1
  • Sarah Lord
    • 2
  • John Torrey
    • 3
  • Lisa Marsch
    • 2
  • Michael Lardiere
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Mental Health Services Research, Brown School of Social WorkWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Center for Technology and Behavioral Health, Dartmouth Psychiatric Research CenterLebanonUSA
  3. 3.Dartmouth Psychiatric Research CenterLebanonUSA
  4. 4.National Council for Behavioral HealthWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations