Sheila C. Johnson Center for Clinical Services, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Department of Human Services, University of Virginia, 417 Emmet St. South, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA.
Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2019 Oct 4;21(10):106. doi: 10.1007/s11920-019-1092-2.
We provide a critical review of digital technologies in evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for mental health with a focus on the functions technologies are intended to serve. The review highlights issues related to clarity of purpose, usability, and assumptions related to EBT technology integration, branding, and packaging.
Developers continue to use technology in creative ways, often combining multiple functions to convey existing EBTs or to create new technology-enabled EBTs. Developers have a strong preference for creating and investigating whole-source, branded solutions related to specific EBTs, in comparison to developing or investigating technology tools related to specific components of behavior change, or developing specific clinical protocols that can be delivered via existing technologies. Default assumptions that new applications are required for each individual EBT, that EBTs are best served by the use of only one technology solution rather than multiple tools, and that an EBT-specific technology product should include or convey all portions of an EBT slow scientific progress and increase risk of usability issues that negatively impact uptake. We contend that a purposeful, functions-based approach should guide the selection, development, and application of technology in support of EBT delivery.
我们对基于证据的心理健康治疗（EBT）中的数字技术进行了批判性评价，重点关注技术旨在实现的功能。该综述强调了与目的明确性、可用性以及与 EBT 技术集成、品牌和包装相关的假设相关的问题。
开发人员继续以创造性的方式使用技术，通常将多种功能结合起来，以传达现有的 EBT 或创建新的基于技术的 EBT。与开发或研究与行为改变的特定组成部分相关的技术工具或开发可通过现有技术提供的特定临床协议相比，开发人员更倾向于创建和研究与特定 EBT 相关的全源、品牌解决方案。默认假设是每个 EBT 需要新的应用程序，使用单一技术解决方案而不是多种工具最能服务于 EBT，并且 EBT 特定的技术产品应包括或传达 EBT 的所有部分，这种假设会减缓科学进展并增加可用性问题的风险，从而对采用产生负面影响。我们认为，有针对性的、基于功能的方法应该指导技术的选择、开发和应用，以支持 EBT 的提供。
