Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Advanced Laboratories for Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness (ALACRITY) Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jun 14;24(6):e37585. doi: 10.2196/37585.
People often prefer evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPIs) for mental health care; however, these interventions frequently remain unavailable to people in nonspecialty or integrated settings, such as primary care and schools. Previous research has suggested that usability, a concept from human-centered design, could support an understanding of the barriers to and facilitators of the successful adoption of EBPIs and support the redesign of EBPIs and implementation strategies.
This study aimed to identify and categorize usability issues in EBPIs and their implementation strategies.
We adapted a usability issue analysis and reporting format from a human-centered design. A total of 13 projects supported by the National Institute of Mental Health-funded Accelerating the Reach and Impact of Treatments for Youth and Adults with Mental Illness Center at the University of Washington used this format to describe usability issues for EBPIs and implementation strategies with which they were working. Center researchers used iterative affinity diagramming and coding processes to identify usability issue categories. On the basis of these categories and the underlying issues, we propose heuristics for the design or redesign of EBPIs and implementation strategies.
The 13 projects reported a total of 90 usability issues, which we categorized into 12 categories, including complex and/or cognitively overwhelming, required time exceeding available time, incompatibility with interventionist preference or practice, incompatibility with existing workflow, insufficient customization to clients/recipients, intervention buy-in (value), interventionist buy-in (trust), overreliance on technology, requires unavailable infrastructure, inadequate scaffolding for client/recipient, inadequate training and scaffolding for interventionists, and lack of support for necessary communication. These issues range from minor inconveniences that affect a few interventionists or recipients to severe issues that prevent all interventionists or recipients in a setting from completing part or all of the intervention. We propose 12 corresponding heuristics to guide EBPIs and implementation strategy designers in preventing and addressing these usability issues.
Usability issues were prevalent in the studied EBPIs and implementation strategies. We recommend using the lens of usability evaluation to understand and address barriers to the effective use and reach of EBPIs and implementation strategies.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/14990.
人们通常更倾向于使用基于证据的心理社会干预措施（EBPIs）进行心理健康护理；然而，这些干预措施在非专业或综合环境中，如初级保健和学校，往往无法为人们所获得。先前的研究表明，可用性是以人为中心的设计的一个概念，可以帮助理解成功采用 EBPIs 的障碍和促进因素，并支持 EBPIs 和实施策略的重新设计。
本研究旨在确定和分类 EBPIs 及其实施策略中的可用性问题。
我们从以人为中心的设计中改编了一种可用性问题分析和报告格式。华盛顿大学国家心理健康研究所资助的加速治疗青少年和成人精神疾病中心支持的 13 个项目使用这种格式来描述他们正在使用的 EBPIs 和实施策略的可用性问题。中心研究人员使用迭代亲和图和编码过程来确定可用性问题类别。基于这些类别和潜在问题，我们提出了 EBPIs 和实施策略设计或重新设计的启发式方法。
这 13 个项目共报告了 90 个可用性问题，我们将其分为 12 类，包括复杂和/或认知负担过重、所需时间超过可用时间、与干预者偏好或实践不兼容、与现有工作流程不兼容、对客户/接收者的定制不足、干预措施的接受度（价值）、干预者的接受度（信任）、过度依赖技术、需要不可用的基础设施、对客户/接收者的支持不足、对干预者的培训和支持不足以及缺乏必要沟通的支持。这些问题的范围从影响少数干预者或接受者的小不便到严重到阻止一个环境中的所有干预者或接受者完成部分或全部干预的问题。我们提出了 12 个相应的启发式方法，以指导 EBPIs 和实施策略设计师预防和解决这些可用性问题。
在研究的 EBPIs 和实施策略中，可用性问题普遍存在。我们建议使用可用性评估的视角来理解和解决 EBPIs 和实施策略有效使用和推广的障碍。
