Dederichs Melina, Weber Jeannette, Pischke Claudia R, Angerer Peter, Apolinário-Hagen Jennifer
Institute of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Centre for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225 Düsseldorf, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Institute of Medical Sociology, Centre for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225 Düsseldorf, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Internet Interv. 2021 Apr 30;25:100398. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2021.100398. eCollection 2021 Sep.
Medical students show a relatively high prevalence for common mental disorders. Only few of those in need for treatment seek professional help. Therefore, easily accessible interventions are required. While several evidence-based internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) have been proposed, little is known about medical students' attitudes towards using them.
We aimed to explore the views of medical students on IMIs as well as facilitators and barriers to use them and gain first insights into their preferences for tailored IMIs.
We conducted four focus groups with 26 medical students enrolled at a German medical school in March 2020. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed following established approaches for qualitative content analysis.
Medical students valued IMIs for their low-threshold and flexible access, their potential to bridge waiting times and as a first step towards face-to-face-therapy. However, medical students preferred face-to-face interventions in case of severe mental health problems. The main disadvantages named by students included difficulties to find or decide on suitable IMIs based on clear quality criteria, fear of a misdiagnosis and lack of personalisation and human interaction. Some students also questioned the effectiveness of IMIs. Easy handling, flexible use, data safety and easily understandable terms of use were believed to facilitate the uptake of IMIs, whereas technical problems, frequent notifications, required internet access, need to register, lack of anonymity, high time expenditure and costs were reported to hinder their use. Most students did not prefer IMIs tailored to medical students but rather wanted to use IMIs suitable for students of all disciplines.
Our results suggest overall positive views regarding IMIs for mental health promotion but concerns regarding their use for severe mental disorders and acute crises. Our findings indicate that IMIs may represent promising tools for stress prevention and early interventions for medical students. Students explicitly stated to prefer quality-approved IMIs recommended and provided by their university.
医学生中常见精神障碍的患病率相对较高。只有少数需要治疗的人寻求专业帮助。因此，需要易于获得的干预措施。虽然已经提出了几种基于互联网和移动设备的循证干预措施（IMIs），但对于医学生对使用这些措施的态度知之甚少。
我们旨在探讨医学生对IMIs的看法以及使用它们的促进因素和障碍，并初步了解他们对定制IMIs的偏好。
2020年3月，我们对德国一所医学院的26名医学生进行了四个焦点小组访谈。焦点小组进行了录音、转录，并按照既定的定性内容分析方法进行了分析。
医学生重视IMIs，因为它们门槛低、使用灵活，有潜力缩短等待时间，并且是迈向面对面治疗的第一步。然而，对于严重心理健康问题，医学生更喜欢面对面干预。学生们提到的主要缺点包括难以根据明确的质量标准找到或选择合适的IMIs，担心误诊，以及缺乏个性化和人际互动。一些学生还质疑IMIs的有效性。他们认为易于操作、使用灵活、数据安全和易于理解的使用条款有助于IMIs的采用，而技术问题、频繁通知、需要互联网接入、需要注册、缺乏匿名性、时间成本高和费用高则被报告为阻碍其使用的因素。大多数学生不喜欢为医学生量身定制的IMIs，而是希望使用适用于所有学科学生的IMIs。
我们的结果表明，总体而言，对于促进心理健康的IMIs有积极看法，但对于将其用于严重精神障碍和急性危机存在担忧。我们的研究结果表明，IMIs可能是医学生预防压力和早期干预的有前途的工具。学生们明确表示更喜欢由他们的大学推荐和提供的质量认可的IMIs。
