• 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

有治疗需求的成年人的心理治疗障碍及对数字心理健康干预措施的兴趣:调查研究

Psychotherapy Access Barriers and Interest in Digital Mental Health Interventions Among Adults With Treatment Needs: Survey Study.

作者信息

Starvaggi Isabella, Lorenzo-Luaces Lorenzo

机构信息

Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, United States.

出版信息

JMIR Ment Health. 2025 Apr 1;12:e65356. doi: 10.2196/65356.

DOI:10.2196/65356
PMID:40168039
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12000781/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) are a promising approach to reducing the public health burden of mental illness. DMHIs are efficacious, can provide evidence-based treatment with few resources, and are highly scalable relative to one-on-one face-to-face psychotherapy. There is potential for DMHIs to substantially reduce unmet treatment needs by circumventing structural barriers to treatment access (eg, cost, geography, and time). However, epidemiological research on perceived barriers to mental health care use demonstrates that attitudinal barriers, such as the lack of perceived need for treatment, are the most common self-reported reasons for not accessing care. Thus, the most important barriers to accessing traditional psychotherapy may also be barriers to accessing DMHIs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore whether attitudinal barriers to traditional psychotherapy access might also serve as barriers to DMHI uptake. We explored the relationships between individuals' structural versus attitudinal barriers to accessing psychotherapy and their indicators of potential use of internet-delivered guided self-help (GSH).

METHODS

We collected survey data from 971 US adults who were recruited online via Prolific and screened for the presence of psychological distress. Participants provided information about demographic characteristics, current symptoms, and the use of psychotherapy in the past year. Those without past-year psychotherapy use (640/971, 65.9%) answered questions about perceived barriers to psychotherapy access, selecting all contributing barriers to not using psychotherapy and a primary barrier. Participants also read detailed information about a GSH intervention. Primary outcomes were participants' self-reported interest in the GSH intervention and self-reported likelihood of using the intervention if offered to them.

RESULTS

Individuals who had used psychotherapy in the past year reported greater interest in GSH than those who had not (odds ratio [OR] 2.38, 95% CI 1.86-3.06; P<.001) and greater self-reported likelihood of using GSH (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.71-2.96; P<.001). Attitudinal primary barriers (eg, lack of perceived need; 336/640, 52.5%) were more common than structural primary barriers (eg, money or insurance; 244/640, 38.1%). Relative to endorsing a structural primary barrier, endorsing an attitudinal primary barrier was associated with lower interest in GSH (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32-0.6; across all 3 barrier types, P<.001) and lower self-reported likelihood of using GSH (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.87; P=.045). We found no statistically significant differences in primary study outcomes by race or ethnicity or by income, but income had a statistically significant relationship with primary barrier type (ORs 0.27-3.71; P=.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that attitudinal barriers to traditional psychotherapy use may also serve as barriers to DMHI use, suggesting that disregarding the role of attitudinal barriers may limit the reach of DMHIs. Future research should seek to further understand the relationship between general treatment-seeking attitudes and attitudes about DMHIs to inform the design and marketing of DMHIs.

摘要

背景

数字心理健康干预措施(DMHIs)是减轻精神疾病公共卫生负担的一种有前景的方法。DMHIs 是有效的,能够以较少资源提供循证治疗,并且相对于一对一的面对面心理治疗具有高度可扩展性。DMHIs 有可能通过规避治疗获取的结构性障碍(如成本、地理位置和时间)大幅减少未满足的治疗需求。然而,关于心理健康服务使用中感知障碍的流行病学研究表明,态度障碍,如缺乏对治疗的感知需求,是未接受治疗最常见的自我报告原因。因此,获取传统心理治疗的最重要障碍可能也是获取 DMHIs 的障碍。

目的

本研究旨在探讨获取传统心理治疗的态度障碍是否也可能成为采用 DMHIs 的障碍。我们探讨了个体获取心理治疗的结构性与态度性障碍之间的关系,以及他们使用互联网提供的引导式自助(GSH)的潜在指标之间的关系。

方法

我们从 971 名通过 Prolific 在线招募并经心理困扰筛查的美国成年人中收集了调查数据。参与者提供了有关人口统计学特征、当前症状以及过去一年中心理治疗使用情况的信息。那些过去一年未使用心理治疗的人(640/971,65.9%)回答了关于获取心理治疗感知障碍的问题,选择所有导致未使用心理治疗的障碍因素以及一个主要障碍。参与者还阅读了关于 GSH 干预的详细信息。主要结局是参与者自我报告的对 GSH 干预的兴趣以及如果提供该干预自我报告的使用可能性。

结果

过去一年使用过心理治疗的个体对 GSH 的兴趣高于未使用过的个体(优势比[OR]2.38,95%置信区间 1.86 - 3.06;P <.001),且自我报告使用 GSH 的可能性更高(OR 2.25,95%置信区间 1.71 - 2.96;P <.001)。态度性主要障碍(如缺乏感知需求;336/640,52.5%)比结构性主要障碍(如金钱或保险;244/640,38.1%)更常见。相对于认可结构性主要障碍,认可态度性主要障碍与对 GSH 的兴趣较低相关(OR 0.44,95%置信区间 0.32 - 0.6;在所有 3 种障碍类型中,P <.001),且自我报告使用 GSH 的可能性较低(OR 0.61,95%置信区间 0.43 - 0.87;P = 0.045)。我们发现主要研究结局在种族或民族以及收入方面无统计学显著差异,但收入与主要障碍类型存在统计学显著关系(OR 0.27 - 3.71;P = 0.045)。

结论

我们的研究结果表明,传统心理治疗使用中的态度障碍也可能成为 DMHI 使用的障碍,这表明忽视态度障碍的作用可能会限制 DMHIs 的覆盖范围。未来研究应进一步了解一般寻求治疗态度与对 DMHIs 的态度之间的关系,以为 DMHIs 的设计和推广提供信息。

相似文献

1
Psychotherapy Access Barriers and Interest in Digital Mental Health Interventions Among Adults With Treatment Needs: Survey Study.有治疗需求的成年人的心理治疗障碍及对数字心理健康干预措施的兴趣:调查研究
JMIR Ment Health. 2025 Apr 1;12:e65356. doi: 10.2196/65356.
2
We Have Spent Time, Money, and Effort Making Self-Help Digital Mental Health Interventions: Is Anyone Going to Come to the Party?我们已经花费了时间、金钱和精力来制作自助式数字心理健康干预措施:会有人来参加派对吗?
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Sep 19;26:e58198. doi: 10.2196/58198.
3
Barriers and Facilitators of Digital Mental Health Use in Regional, Rural, and Remote Australia: A Comparison of Clinician and Consumer Perspectives.澳大利亚地区、农村和偏远地区数字心理健康应用的障碍与促进因素:临床医生与消费者视角的比较
Aust J Rural Health. 2025 Apr;33(2):e70011. doi: 10.1111/ajr.70011.
4
Digital Mental Health Interventions for Alleviating Depression and Anxiety During Psychotherapy Waiting Lists: Systematic Review.数字心理健康干预在心理治疗等候名单中缓解抑郁和焦虑的系统评价。
JMIR Ment Health. 2024 Sep 10;11:e56650. doi: 10.2196/56650.
5
Real-World Adoption of Mental Health Support Among Adolescents: Cross-Sectional Analysis of the California Health Interview Survey.青少年心理健康支持在现实世界中的应用:加利福尼亚健康访谈调查的横断面分析
J Pediatr Psychol. 2025 Jan 1;50(1):20-29. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsad082.
6
Insurance status, use of mental health services, and unmet need for mental health care in the United States.美国的保险状况、心理健康服务的使用情况以及未满足的心理健康护理需求。
Psychiatr Serv. 2015 Jun;66(6):578-84. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201400248. Epub 2015 Mar 1.
7
Barriers of mental health treatment utilization among first-year college students: First cross-national results from the WHO World Mental Health International College Student Initiative.大一学生心理健康治疗利用的障碍:来自世卫组织世界心理健康国际大学生倡议的首次跨国研究结果。
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2019 Jun;28(2):e1782. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1782. Epub 2019 May 9.
8
Self-reported contacts for mental health problems by rural residents: predicted service needs, facilitators and barriers.农村居民心理健康问题的自我报告接触情况:预测的服务需求、促进因素和障碍
BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Sep 6;14:249. doi: 10.1186/s12888-014-0249-0.
9
Exploring Engagement With and Effectiveness of Digital Mental Health Interventions in Young People of Different Ethnicities: Systematic Review.探索不同种族青少年对数字心理健康干预措施的参与度及其有效性:系统评价
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Apr 7;27:e68544. doi: 10.2196/68544.
10
Race and Socioeconomic Status as Predictors of Willingness to Use Digital Mental Health Interventions or One-On-One Psychotherapy: National Survey Study.种族和社会经济地位作为使用数字心理健康干预或一对一心理治疗意愿的预测因素:全国调查研究
JMIR Form Res. 2024 Apr 11;8:e49780. doi: 10.2196/49780.

本文引用的文献

1
State of the Science: Using Digital Mental Health Interventions to Extend the Impact of Psychological Services.科学现状:利用数字心理健康干预措施扩大心理服务的影响
Behav Ther. 2024 Nov;55(6):1364-1379. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2024.04.004. Epub 2024 Apr 10.
2
Data Integrity Issues With Web-Based Studies: An Institutional Example of a Widespread Challenge.基于网络研究中的数据完整性问题:一个广泛存在挑战的机构实例
JMIR Ment Health. 2024 Sep 16;11:e58432. doi: 10.2196/58432.
3
Race and Socioeconomic Status as Predictors of Willingness to Use Digital Mental Health Interventions or One-On-One Psychotherapy: National Survey Study.种族和社会经济地位作为使用数字心理健康干预或一对一心理治疗意愿的预测因素:全国调查研究
JMIR Form Res. 2024 Apr 11;8:e49780. doi: 10.2196/49780.
4
Race, Ethnicity, and Other Cultural Background Factors in Trials of Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: Systematic Review.种族、民族和其他文化背景因素在基于互联网的认知行为疗法治疗抑郁症试验中的作用:系统评价。
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Feb 1;26:e50780. doi: 10.2196/50780.
5
Availability of Internet-Based Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies for Depression: A Systematic Review.互联网认知行为疗法治疗抑郁症的有效性:一项系统性综述。
Behav Ther. 2024 Jan;55(1):201-211. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2023.06.003. Epub 2023 Jun 29.
6
Urban Latinx parents' attitudes towards mental health: Mental health literacy and service use.美国城市拉丁裔父母对心理健康的态度:心理健康素养与服务利用情况
Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020 Feb;109. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104719. Epub 2019 Dec 23.
7
Examining Diversity in Digital Therapeutics Clinical Trials: Descriptive Analysis.研究数字治疗临床试验中的多样性:描述性分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2023 Aug 2;25:e37447. doi: 10.2196/37447.
8
Is it ethical to use Mechanical Turk for behavioral research? Relevant data from a representative survey of MTurk participants and wages.使用 Mechanical Turk 进行行为研究是否合乎道德规范?来自 MTurk 参与者和工资的代表性调查的相关数据。
Behav Res Methods. 2023 Dec;55(8):4048-4067. doi: 10.3758/s13428-022-02005-0. Epub 2023 May 22.
9
Digital Intervention Barriers Scale-7 (DIBS-7): Development, Evaluation, and Preliminary Validation.数字干预障碍量表-7(DIBS-7):编制、评估与初步验证
JMIR Form Res. 2023 Apr 6;7:e40509. doi: 10.2196/40509.
10
Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA.在线人体研究中的数据质量:MTurk、ProLific、CloudResearch、Qualtrics 和 SONA 之间的比较。
PLoS One. 2023 Mar 14;18(3):e0279720. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279720. eCollection 2023.