Center for Psychotherapy Research, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ruprecht-Karls University, Heidelberg, Germany.
BMC Public Health. 2024 Sep 12;24(1):2486. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19989-3.
Eating disorders (EDs) constitute a considerable burden for individuals and society, but adequate and timely professional treatment is rare. Evidence-based Digital Mental Health Interventions (DMHIs) have the potential both to reduce this treatment gap and to increase treatment effectiveness. However, their integration into routine care is lacking. Understanding practitioners' attitudes towards DMHIs for EDs is crucial for their effective use.
To investigate the consensus among German ED treatment experts on the relevance of different influencing factors for DMHI use in EDs.
This Delphi study consisted of two rounds and was conducted online with an initial sample of N = 24 ED experts (M=41.96, SD=9.92, n = 22 female). Prior to the Delphi rounds, semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were performed to explore participants' attitudes, experiences, and expectations towards DMHIs. In order to construct the Delphi survey, content analysis was applied to a subset of ten interviews. A total of 63 influencing factors were identified and grouped into three main categories: contextual conditions, design, and content of DMHIs. In both Delphi rounds, the interview participants were subsequently invited to rate each of the factors with regard to their importance on 10-point scales. Group percentages and individual ratings of the first round (n = 23) were presented in the second round (n = 21). Consensus was calculated for each item (defined as IQR ≤ 2).
Importance ratings were high across items (M = 7.88, SD = 2.07, Mdn = 8). In the first round, 48% of the items reached consensus, with its most important (Mdn = 10) factors referring to data security, evidence base, technical requirements, usability, and specific DMHI content (psychoeducation, crisis intervention). In the second Delphi round, a consensus was reached on 73% of the items. No consensus was reached on 17 items.
The findings on practitioners' attitudes and priorities have relevant implications for subsequent DMHI development, dissemination, and implementation strategies, indicating that the highest-rated factors should be highlighted in the process.
饮食失调(EDs)给个人和社会带来了相当大的负担,但足够和及时的专业治疗却很少见。基于证据的数字心理健康干预(DMHIs)有潜力既能缩小治疗差距,又能提高治疗效果。然而,它们在常规护理中的整合却很缺乏。了解从业者对 EDs 的 DMHIs 的态度对于其有效使用至关重要。
调查德国 ED 治疗专家对不同影响因素对 EDs 中 DMHI 使用的相关性的共识。
本德尔菲研究由两轮组成,采用在线方式进行,初始样本为 N=24 名 ED 专家(M=41.96,SD=9.92,n=22 名女性)。在德尔菲回合之前,进行了半结构式定性电话访谈,以探讨参与者对 DMHIs 的态度、经验和期望。为了构建德尔菲调查,对十次访谈的一个子集进行了内容分析。总共确定了 63 个影响因素,并分为三个主要类别:背景条件、DMHI 的设计和内容。在两轮德尔菲中,随后邀请访谈参与者对每一个因素的重要性进行 10 点刻度的评分。第一轮的组百分比和个人评分(n=23)在第二轮(n=21)中呈现。对于每个项目(定义为 IQR≤2),都计算了一致性。
各项重要性评分均很高(M=7.88,SD=2.07,中位数=8)。在第一轮中,48%的项目达成了共识,最重要的(中位数=10)因素是数据安全性、证据基础、技术要求、可用性和特定的 DMHI 内容(心理教育、危机干预)。在第二轮德尔菲中,有 73%的项目达成了共识。有 17 个项目没有达成共识。
关于从业者的态度和优先事项的发现对随后的 DMHI 开发、传播和实施策略具有相关意义,表明在这个过程中应突出评分最高的因素。