Open AccessImplementation Outcome Scales for Digital Mental Health (iOSDMH): Scale Development and Cross-sectional Study
Author(s) -
Natsu Sasaki,
Erika Obikane,
Rajesh Vedanthan,
Kotaro Imamura,
Pim Cuijpers,
Taichi Shimazu,
Masao Kamada,
Norito Kawakami,
Daisuke Nishi
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
jmir formative research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2561-326X
DOI - 10.2196/24332
Subject(s) - mental health , psychological intervention , cronbach's alpha , scale (ratio) , exploratory factor analysis , harm , psychology , applied psychology , consistency (knowledge bases) , nursing , medical education , medicine , clinical psychology , psychometrics , computer science , psychiatry , social psychology , physics , quantum mechanics , artificial intelligence
Background Digital mental health interventions are being used more than ever for the prevention and treatment of psychological problems. Optimizing the implementation aspects of digital mental health is essential to deliver the program to populations in need, but there is a lack of validated implementation outcome measures for digital mental health interventions. Objective The primary aim of this study is to develop implementation outcome scales of digital mental health for different levels of stakeholders involved in the implementation process: users, providers, and managers or policy makers. The secondary aim is to validate the developed scale for users. Methods We developed English and Japanese versions of the implementation outcome scales for digital mental health (iOSDMH) based on the literature review and panel discussions with experts in implementation research and web-based psychotherapy. The study developed acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, satisfaction, and harm as the outcome measures for users, providers, and managers or policy makers. We conducted evidence-based interventions via the internet using UTSMeD, a website for mental health information (N=200). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to assess the structural validity of the iOSDMH for users. Satisfaction, which consisted of a single item, was not included in the EFA. Results The iOSDMH was developed for users, providers, and managers or policy makers. The iOSDMH contains 19 items for users, 11 items for providers, and 14 items for managers or policy makers. Cronbach α coefficients indicated intermediate internal consistency for acceptability (α=.665) but high consistency for appropriateness (α=.776), feasibility (α=.832), and harm (α=.777) of the iOSDMH for users. EFA revealed 3-factor structures, indicating acceptability and appropriateness as close concepts. Despite the similarity between these 2 concepts, we inferred that acceptability and appropriateness should be used as different factors, following previous studies. Conclusions We developed iOSDMH for users, providers, and managers. Psychometric assessment of the scales for users demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. Evaluating the components of digital mental health implementation is a major step forward in implementation science.