• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

普通人群对心理健康类 APP 的偏好存在性别差异——来自德国的基于选择的联合分析。

Gender differences in preferences for mental health apps in the general population - a choice-based conjoint analysis from Germany.

机构信息

School of Business, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Bielefeld, Interaktion 1, 33619, Bielefeld, Germany.

Mental Health Research and Treatment Centre Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

出版信息

BMC Psychiatry. 2024 Oct 14;24(1):682. doi: 10.1186/s12888-024-06134-y.

DOI:10.1186/s12888-024-06134-y
PMID:39402505
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475598/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Men and women differ in the mental health issues they typically face. This study aims to describe gender differences in preferences for mental health treatment options and specifically tries to identify participants who prefer AI-based therapy over traditional face-to-face therapy.

METHOD

A nationally representative sample of 2,108 participants (53% female) aged 18 to 74 years completed a choice-based conjoint analysis (CBCA). Within the CBCA, participants evaluated twenty choice sets, each describing three treatment variants in terms of provider, content, costs, and waiting time.

RESULTS

Costs (relative importance [RI] = 55%) emerged as the most critical factor when choosing between treatment options, followed by provider (RI = 31%), content (RI = 10%), and waiting time (RI = 4%). Small yet statistically significant differences were observed between women and men. Women placed greater importance on the provider, while men placed greater importance on cost and waiting time. Age and previous experience with psychotherapy and with mental health apps were systematically related to individual preferences but did not alter gender effects. Only a minority (approximately 8%) of participants preferred AI-based treatment to traditional therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, affordable mental health treatments performed by human therapists are consistently favored by both men and women. AI-driven mental health apps should align with user preferences to address psychologist shortages. However, it is uncertain whether they alone can meet the rising demand, highlighting the need for alternative solutions.

摘要

背景

男性和女性在他们通常面临的心理健康问题上存在差异。本研究旨在描述心理健康治疗选择偏好方面的性别差异,并特别试图确定更喜欢基于人工智能的治疗而不是传统面对面治疗的参与者。

方法

一项针对年龄在 18 至 74 岁之间的 2108 名参与者(女性占 53%)的全国代表性样本完成了基于选择的联合分析(CBCA)。在 CBCA 中,参与者评估了 20 个选择集,每个选择集都从提供者、内容、成本和等待时间三个方面描述了三种治疗方案。

结果

成本(相对重要性 [RI] = 55%)是选择治疗方案时最关键的因素,其次是提供者(RI = 31%)、内容(RI = 10%)和等待时间(RI = 4%)。女性和男性之间观察到微小但具有统计学意义的差异。女性更看重提供者,而男性更看重成本和等待时间。年龄以及之前接受过心理治疗和心理健康应用程序的经验与个人偏好系统相关,但不会改变性别效应。只有少数(约 8%)参与者更喜欢基于人工智能的治疗而不是传统治疗。

结论

总体而言,由人类治疗师提供的负担得起的心理健康治疗方法一直受到男性和女性的青睐。人工智能驱动的心理健康应用程序应根据用户偏好进行调整,以解决心理学家短缺的问题。然而,尚不确定它们是否能够单独满足不断增长的需求,这突显了需要替代解决方案。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef4f/11475598/86e6e6ca1cf6/12888_2024_6134_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef4f/11475598/86e6e6ca1cf6/12888_2024_6134_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ef4f/11475598/86e6e6ca1cf6/12888_2024_6134_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Gender differences in preferences for mental health apps in the general population - a choice-based conjoint analysis from Germany.普通人群对心理健康类 APP 的偏好存在性别差异——来自德国的基于选择的联合分析。
BMC Psychiatry. 2024 Oct 14;24(1):682. doi: 10.1186/s12888-024-06134-y.
2
Preferences of Non-Metropolitan Youth Towards Accessing Mental Health Services: A Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis.非大都市地区青少年对获得心理健康服务的偏好:基于选择的联合分析
Aust J Rural Health. 2025 Apr;33(2):e70052. doi: 10.1111/ajr.70052.
3
Young Adult Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence-Based Medication Counseling in China: Discrete Choice Experiment.中国年轻人对基于人工智能的药物咨询的看法:离散选择实验
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Apr 9;27:e67744. doi: 10.2196/67744.
4
Preferences for e-Mental Health Interventions in Germany: A Discrete Choice Experiment.德国对电子心理健康干预措施的偏好:一项离散选择实验。
Value Health. 2021 Mar;24(3):421-430. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.09.018. Epub 2021 Jan 20.
5
Preferences for Early Intervention Mental Health Services: A Discrete-Choice Conjoint Experiment.早期干预心理健康服务的偏好:一项离散选择联合实验
Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Feb;67(2):184-91. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201400306. Epub 2015 Sep 15.
6
Digital Natives' Preferences on Mobile Artificial Intelligence Apps for Skin Cancer Diagnostics: Survey Study.数字原住民对移动人工智能皮肤癌诊断应用的偏好:调查研究。
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Aug 27;9(8):e22909. doi: 10.2196/22909.
7
Treatment preferences among men attending outpatient psychiatric services.男性在门诊精神科就诊的治疗偏好。
J Ment Health. 2014 Apr;23(2):83-7. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2013.869573. Epub 2014 Jan 16.
8
The interim service preferences of parents waiting for children's mental health treatment: a discrete choice conjoint experiment.等待儿童心理健康治疗的父母的临时服务偏好:离散选择联合实验。
J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2013 Aug;41(6):865-77. doi: 10.1007/s10802-013-9728-x.
9
A discrete-choice experiment to assess treatment modality preferences of patients with anxiety disorder.一项用于评估焦虑症患者治疗方式偏好的离散选择实验。
J Med Econ. 2019 Feb;22(2):169-177. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2018.1555403. Epub 2018 Dec 22.
10
Eliciting Preferences for the Uptake of Smoking Cessation Apps: Discrete Choice Experiment.探究对戒烟应用程序使用的偏好:离散选择实验
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Jan 14;27:e37083. doi: 10.2196/37083.

引用本文的文献

1
Preferences of patients with depression for exercises: a discrete choice experiment.抑郁症患者对运动的偏好:一项离散选择实验。
BMC Public Health. 2025 Mar 29;25(1):1192. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-22404-0.

本文引用的文献

1
Acceptance of Medical Artificial Intelligence in Skin Cancer Screening: Choice-Based Conjoint Survey.医学人工智能在皮肤癌筛查中的接受度:基于选择的联合调查。
JMIR Form Res. 2024 Jan 12;8:e46402. doi: 10.2196/46402.
2
Intention to use digital mental health solutions: A cross-sectional survey of university students attitudes and perceptions toward online therapy, mental health apps, and chatbots.使用数字心理健康解决方案的意向:一项关于大学生对在线治疗、心理健康应用程序和聊天机器人的态度与看法的横断面调查。
Digit Health. 2023 Nov 30;9:20552076231216559. doi: 10.1177/20552076231216559. eCollection 2023 Jan-Dec.
3
Artificial intelligence and machine learning in mobile apps for mental health: A scoping review.
移动应用程序中用于心理健康的人工智能和机器学习:一项范围综述。
PLOS Digit Health. 2022 Aug 15;1(8):e0000079. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000079. eCollection 2022 Aug.
4
Potential and Pitfalls of Mobile Mental Health Apps in Traditional Treatment: An Umbrella Review.移动心理健康应用程序在传统治疗中的潜力与陷阱:一项综述。
J Pers Med. 2022 Aug 25;12(9):1376. doi: 10.3390/jpm12091376.
5
Attitudes toward innovative mental health treatment approaches in Germany: E-mental health and home treatment.德国对创新型心理健康治疗方法的态度:电子心理健康与居家治疗
Front Psychiatry. 2022 Jul 15;13:889555. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.889555. eCollection 2022.
6
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.《健康经济评估报告标准(CHEERS)》2022 年解释与详述:ISPOR CHEERS II 良好实践工作组报告。
Value Health. 2022 Jan;25(1):10-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008.
7
Understanding, explaining, and utilizing medical artificial intelligence.理解、解释和利用医学人工智能。
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Dec;5(12):1636-1642. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01146-0. Epub 2021 Jun 28.
8
Mental health service preferences of patients and providers: a scoping review of conjoint analysis and discrete choice experiments from global public health literature over the last 20 years (1999-2019).患者和提供者的精神卫生服务偏好:过去 20 年(1999-2019 年)全球公共卫生文献中联合分析和离散选择实验的范围综述。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Jun 18;21(1):589. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06499-w.
9
Preferences for e-Mental Health Interventions in Germany: A Discrete Choice Experiment.德国对电子心理健康干预措施的偏好:一项离散选择实验。
Value Health. 2021 Mar;24(3):421-430. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.09.018. Epub 2021 Jan 20.
10
State of the Field of Mental Health Apps.心理健康应用程序领域的现状。
Cogn Behav Pract. 2018 Nov;25(4):531-537. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.01.002. Epub 2018 Mar 5.