它易于使用和有用吗?心理健康专业人员的观点为开发一种新的青少年心理健康服务治疗参与系统提供了信息

IF 2.9 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Cognitive and Behavioral Practice Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cbpra.2021.11.003
Wendy Chu, Kimberly D. Becker, Maya M. Boustani, Alayna L. Park, Bruce F. Chorpita
{"title":"它易于使用和有用吗?心理健康专业人员的观点为开发一种新的青少年心理健康服务治疗参与系统提供了信息","authors":"Wendy Chu,&nbsp;Kimberly D. Becker,&nbsp;Maya M. Boustani,&nbsp;Alayna L. Park,&nbsp;Bruce F. Chorpita","doi":"10.1016/j.cbpra.2021.11.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>User experiences are essential to the adoption of an intervention and can be integral to intervention design. We applied two concepts from the technology acceptance model (i.e., perceived ease of use, perceived utility) to understand how mental health professionals experienced a novel system of resources (i.e., engagement system) designed to improve problem identification, coordination, and treatment planning decisions related to addressing problems of low treatment engagement in school mental health services. We conducted a 1-hour focus group with 10 mental health professionals (provider <em>n</em> = 8, supervisor <em>n</em> = 2) using prompts to elicit their perspectives about the effort involved in using the engagement system and about the usefulness of the system in their work. The focus group was transcribed and segmented into 70 excerpts by trained coders. We analyzed the transcript using a consensual qualitative research approach. Ease of use was coded in 15 (39%) excerpts and utility was coded in 24 (61%) excerpts. The valences of excerpts were neutral (<em>n</em> = 18; 46%), positive (<em>n</em> = 10; 26%), and negative (<em>n</em> = 11; 28%). Thirty-nine (56%) excerpts discussed the engagement system. Excerpts pertained to problem identification (<em>n</em> = 18; 46%), coordination (<em>n</em> = 18; 46%), and treatment planning (<em>n</em> = 3; 8%). Findings revealed that resources and procedures were rated differently on their perceived ease of use and utility. Participants reported that the coordination resource had high utility and positively impacted their clinical practice and supervision, while the problem identification resources had low ease of use and were burdensome or difficult to use. Some lessons learned include the value of designing resources that provide structure to clinical decision processes yet allow for some flexibility, the need for simpler and automated procedures to reduce provider burden, and the importance of clear guidelines on how resources should and should not be used. We used this feedback to inform changes to the engagement system prior to testing in a randomized trial. This brief report highlights how applying the technology acceptance model to evaluate interventions can aid in the successful implementation of novel clinical interventions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51511,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive and Behavioral Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is It Easy to Use and Useful? Mental Health Professionals’ Perspectives Inform Development of a Novel Treatment Engagement System for Youth Mental Health Services☆☆☆\",\"authors\":\"Wendy Chu,&nbsp;Kimberly D. Becker,&nbsp;Maya M. Boustani,&nbsp;Alayna L. Park,&nbsp;Bruce F. Chorpita\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cbpra.2021.11.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>User experiences are essential to the adoption of an intervention and can be integral to intervention design. We applied two concepts from the technology acceptance model (i.e., perceived ease of use, perceived utility) to understand how mental health professionals experienced a novel system of resources (i.e., engagement system) designed to improve problem identification, coordination, and treatment planning decisions related to addressing problems of low treatment engagement in school mental health services. We conducted a 1-hour focus group with 10 mental health professionals (provider <em>n</em> = 8, supervisor <em>n</em> = 2) using prompts to elicit their perspectives about the effort involved in using the engagement system and about the usefulness of the system in their work. The focus group was transcribed and segmented into 70 excerpts by trained coders. We analyzed the transcript using a consensual qualitative research approach. Ease of use was coded in 15 (39%) excerpts and utility was coded in 24 (61%) excerpts. The valences of excerpts were neutral (<em>n</em> = 18; 46%), positive (<em>n</em> = 10; 26%), and negative (<em>n</em> = 11; 28%). Thirty-nine (56%) excerpts discussed the engagement system. Excerpts pertained to problem identification (<em>n</em> = 18; 46%), coordination (<em>n</em> = 18; 46%), and treatment planning (<em>n</em> = 3; 8%). Findings revealed that resources and procedures were rated differently on their perceived ease of use and utility. Participants reported that the coordination resource had high utility and positively impacted their clinical practice and supervision, while the problem identification resources had low ease of use and were burdensome or difficult to use. Some lessons learned include the value of designing resources that provide structure to clinical decision processes yet allow for some flexibility, the need for simpler and automated procedures to reduce provider burden, and the importance of clear guidelines on how resources should and should not be used. We used this feedback to inform changes to the engagement system prior to testing in a randomized trial. This brief report highlights how applying the technology acceptance model to evaluate interventions can aid in the successful implementation of novel clinical interventions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive and Behavioral Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive and Behavioral Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1077722922000025\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive and Behavioral Practice","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1077722922000025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

用户体验对于干预的采用至关重要,并且可以成为干预设计的一部分。我们应用了技术接受模型中的两个概念(即感知易用性,感知效用)来理解心理健康专业人员如何体验一种新的资源系统(即参与系统),该系统旨在改善问题识别、协调和治疗计划决策,这些决策与解决学校心理健康服务中治疗参与度低的问题有关。我们对10名心理健康专业人员(8名提供者,2名主管)进行了1小时的焦点小组讨论,使用提示来引出他们对使用参与系统所涉及的努力以及该系统在他们工作中的有用性的看法。由训练有素的编码员将焦点小组的内容转录并分成70个摘录。我们使用一致同意的定性研究方法分析了成绩单。易用性编码在15个(39%)摘录中,实用性编码在24个(61%)摘录中。摘要的效价为中性(n = 18;46%),阳性(n = 10;26%),阴性(n = 11;28%)。39份(56%)摘录讨论了审计业务约定制度。有关问题识别的摘录(n = 18;46%)、协调性(n = 18;46%)和治疗计划(n = 3;8%)。调查结果显示,资源和程序在其易用性和实用性方面的评分不同。参与者反映,协调资源的效用高,对他们的临床实践和监督有积极的影响,而问题识别资源的易用性低,负担或难以使用。一些经验教训包括设计资源的价值,为临床决策过程提供结构,但允许一定的灵活性,需要更简单和自动化的程序来减轻提供者的负担,以及关于如何使用资源的明确指导方针的重要性。在随机试验测试之前,我们利用这些反馈来告知用户粘性系统的变化。这份简短的报告强调了如何应用技术接受模型来评估干预措施可以帮助成功实施新的临床干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Is It Easy to Use and Useful? Mental Health Professionals’ Perspectives Inform Development of a Novel Treatment Engagement System for Youth Mental Health Services☆☆☆

User experiences are essential to the adoption of an intervention and can be integral to intervention design. We applied two concepts from the technology acceptance model (i.e., perceived ease of use, perceived utility) to understand how mental health professionals experienced a novel system of resources (i.e., engagement system) designed to improve problem identification, coordination, and treatment planning decisions related to addressing problems of low treatment engagement in school mental health services. We conducted a 1-hour focus group with 10 mental health professionals (provider n = 8, supervisor n = 2) using prompts to elicit their perspectives about the effort involved in using the engagement system and about the usefulness of the system in their work. The focus group was transcribed and segmented into 70 excerpts by trained coders. We analyzed the transcript using a consensual qualitative research approach. Ease of use was coded in 15 (39%) excerpts and utility was coded in 24 (61%) excerpts. The valences of excerpts were neutral (n = 18; 46%), positive (n = 10; 26%), and negative (n = 11; 28%). Thirty-nine (56%) excerpts discussed the engagement system. Excerpts pertained to problem identification (n = 18; 46%), coordination (n = 18; 46%), and treatment planning (n = 3; 8%). Findings revealed that resources and procedures were rated differently on their perceived ease of use and utility. Participants reported that the coordination resource had high utility and positively impacted their clinical practice and supervision, while the problem identification resources had low ease of use and were burdensome or difficult to use. Some lessons learned include the value of designing resources that provide structure to clinical decision processes yet allow for some flexibility, the need for simpler and automated procedures to reduce provider burden, and the importance of clear guidelines on how resources should and should not be used. We used this feedback to inform changes to the engagement system prior to testing in a randomized trial. This brief report highlights how applying the technology acceptance model to evaluate interventions can aid in the successful implementation of novel clinical interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive and Behavioral Practice
Cognitive and Behavioral Practice PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
84 days
期刊介绍: Cognitive and Behavioral Practice is a quarterly international journal that serves an enduring resource for empirically informed methods of clinical practice. Its mission is to bridge the gap between published research and the actual clinical practice of cognitive behavior therapy. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice publishes clinically rich accounts of innovative assessment and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that are clearly grounded in empirical research. A focus on application and implementation of procedures is maintained.
期刊最新文献
Narrative Exposure Therapy for a Traumatic Birth Experience With the Non-Birthing Parent: A Single Case Study Disorders in Disguise: Proposed Clinical Competencies in Eating Disorders for All Child and Adolescent Mental Health Providers Older Bereaved Individuals’ Experiences of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Complicated Grief Reactions: A Qualitative Multistage Focus Group Approach Feasibility, Safety, and Acceptability of Cognitive Processing Therapy for PTSD Following a Recent Suicide Attempt: A Case Study Exploring Differences in Presentation and Treatment Outcomes Between Black and White American Adults With Prolonged Grief Disorder
×
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:481959085
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