Evaluating the feasibility of using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy framework to assess implementation strategies for digital mental health applications activations: a proof of concept study.

IF 3.2 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Frontiers in digital health Pub Date : 2025-02-13 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1509415
Ayla Aydin, Wouter van Ballegooijen, Ilja Cornelisz, Anne Etzelmueller
{"title":"Evaluating the feasibility of using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy framework to assess implementation strategies for digital mental health applications activations: a proof of concept study.","authors":"Ayla Aydin, Wouter van Ballegooijen, Ilja Cornelisz, Anne Etzelmueller","doi":"10.3389/fdgth.2025.1509415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the effectiveness and potential of digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) in routine care, their uptake remains low. In Germany, digital mental health applications (DiGA), certified as low-risk medical devices, can be prescribed by healthcare professionals (HCPs) to support the treatment of mental health conditions. The objective of this proof-of-concept study was to evaluate the feasibility of using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) framework when assessing implementation strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We tested the feasibility of the MOST by employing a 2<sup>4</sup> exploratory retrospective factorial design on existing data. We assessed the impact of the implementation strategies (calls, online meetings, arranged and walk-in on-site meetings) individually and in combination, on the number of DiGA activations in a non-randomized design. Data from <i>N</i> = 24,817 HCPs were analyzed using non-parametric tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results primarily demonstrated the feasibility of applying the MOST to a non-randomized setting. Furthermore, analyses indicated significant differences between the groups of HCPs receiving specific implementation strategies [<i>χ<sup>2</sup></i> (15) = 1,665.2, <i>p</i> < .001, <i>ɛ</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0.07]. Combinations of implementation strategies were associated with significantly more DiGA activations. For example, combinations of arranged and walk-in on-site meetings showed higher activation numbers (e.g., <i>Z</i> = 10.60, <i>p</i> < 0.001, <i>χ<sup>2</sup></i>  = 1,665.24) compared to those receiving other strategies. We found a moderate positive correlation between the number of strategies used and activation numbers (<i>r</i> = 0.30, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Discussion and limitations: </strong>These findings support the feasibility of using the MOST to evaluate implementation strategies in digital mental health care. It also gives an exploratory example on how to conduct factorial designs with information on implementation strategies. However, limitations such as non-random assignment, underpowered analysis, and varying approaches to HCPs affect the robustness and generalizability of the results. Despite these limitations, the results demonstrate that the MOST is a viable method for assessing implementation strategies, highlighting the importance of planning and optimizing strategies before their implementation. By addressing these limitations, healthcare providers and policymakers can enhance the adoption of digital health innovations, ultimately improving access to mental health care for a broader population.</p>","PeriodicalId":73078,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in digital health","volume":"7 ","pages":"1509415"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11865092/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1509415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite the effectiveness and potential of digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) in routine care, their uptake remains low. In Germany, digital mental health applications (DiGA), certified as low-risk medical devices, can be prescribed by healthcare professionals (HCPs) to support the treatment of mental health conditions. The objective of this proof-of-concept study was to evaluate the feasibility of using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) framework when assessing implementation strategies.

Methods: We tested the feasibility of the MOST by employing a 24 exploratory retrospective factorial design on existing data. We assessed the impact of the implementation strategies (calls, online meetings, arranged and walk-in on-site meetings) individually and in combination, on the number of DiGA activations in a non-randomized design. Data from N = 24,817 HCPs were analyzed using non-parametric tests.

Results: The results primarily demonstrated the feasibility of applying the MOST to a non-randomized setting. Furthermore, analyses indicated significant differences between the groups of HCPs receiving specific implementation strategies [χ2 (15) = 1,665.2, p < .001, ɛ 2 = 0.07]. Combinations of implementation strategies were associated with significantly more DiGA activations. For example, combinations of arranged and walk-in on-site meetings showed higher activation numbers (e.g., Z = 10.60, p < 0.001, χ2  = 1,665.24) compared to those receiving other strategies. We found a moderate positive correlation between the number of strategies used and activation numbers (r = 0.30, p < 0.001).

Discussion and limitations: These findings support the feasibility of using the MOST to evaluate implementation strategies in digital mental health care. It also gives an exploratory example on how to conduct factorial designs with information on implementation strategies. However, limitations such as non-random assignment, underpowered analysis, and varying approaches to HCPs affect the robustness and generalizability of the results. Despite these limitations, the results demonstrate that the MOST is a viable method for assessing implementation strategies, highlighting the importance of planning and optimizing strategies before their implementation. By addressing these limitations, healthcare providers and policymakers can enhance the adoption of digital health innovations, ultimately improving access to mental health care for a broader population.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估使用多阶段优化战略框架评估数字心理健康应用程序激活的实施战略的可行性:概念验证研究。
背景:尽管数字心理健康干预(DMHIs)在常规护理中的有效性和潜力,但其使用率仍然很低。在德国,经认证为低风险医疗设备的数字心理健康应用程序(DiGA)可由医疗保健专业人员(hcp)开具处方,以支持心理健康状况的治疗。这项概念验证研究的目的是评估在评估实施策略时使用多阶段优化策略(MOST)框架的可行性。方法:我们对现有资料采用24项探索性回顾性因子设计来检验MOST的可行性。在非随机设计中,我们评估了单独和组合实施策略(电话、在线会议、安排和现场会议)对DiGA激活数量的影响。采用非参数检验对N = 24,817名HCPs的数据进行分析。结果:结果主要证明了将MOST应用于非随机环境的可行性。此外,分析表明,接受特定实施策略的HCPs组之间存在显著差异[χ2 (15) = 1,665.2, p / 2 = 0.07]。实施策略的组合与更多的DiGA激活显著相关。例如,与接受其他策略的人相比,安排会议和上门会议的组合显示出更高的激活数(例如,Z = 10.60, p χ2 = 1,665.24)。我们发现所使用的策略数量与激活数之间存在适度的正相关(r = 0.30, p)。讨论和局限性:这些发现支持使用MOST来评估数字精神卫生保健实施策略的可行性。它还提供了一个探索性的例子,说明如何使用有关实现策略的信息进行析因设计。然而,诸如非随机分配、低功率分析和不同的hcp方法等局限性影响了结果的稳健性和泛化性。尽管存在这些局限性,但结果表明MOST是评估实施策略的可行方法,突出了在实施之前规划和优化策略的重要性。通过解决这些限制,医疗保健提供者和政策制定者可以加强对数字健康创新的采用,最终改善更广泛人群获得精神卫生保健的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Early Type 2 diabetes risk prediction using explainable machine learning in a two-stage approach. Practical templates for digital health ethics applications in Sweden: lessons from a sensor-based monitoring study. Ethical oversight of AI-driven paediatric trials: a proactive, risk-sensitive interim review model. Enhanced meta ensemble stacking approach with XGBoost and optuna based detection of Parkinson's disease. Prediction of maturity-onset diabetes of the young subtypes using machine learning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1