Adapting Evidence-Based Treatments for Digital Technologies: a Critical Review of Functions, Tools, and the Use of Branded Solutions

Peter W. Tuerk; Cindy M. Schaeffer; Joseph F. McGuire; Margo Adams Larsen; Nicole Capobianco; John Piacentini

doi:10.1007/s11920-019-1092-2

Adapting Evidence-Based Treatments for Digital Technologies: a Critical Review of Functions, Tools, and the Use of Branded Solutions

Peter W. Tuerk, Cindy M. Schaeffer, Joseph F. McGuire, Margo Adams Larsen, Nicole Capobianco, John Piacentini

School of Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose of Review: We provide a critical review of digital technologies in evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for mental health with a focus on the functions technologies are intended to serve. The review highlights issues related to clarity of purpose, usability, and assumptions related to EBT technology integration, branding, and packaging. Recent Findings: Developers continue to use technology in creative ways, often combining multiple functions to convey existing EBTs or to create new technology-enabled EBTs. Developers have a strong preference for creating and investigating whole-source, branded solutions related to specific EBTs, in comparison to developing or investigating technology tools related to specific components of behavior change, or developing specific clinical protocols that can be delivered via existing technologies. Summary: Default assumptions that new applications are required for each individual EBT, that EBTs are best served by the use of only one technology solution rather than multiple tools, and that an EBT-specific technology product should include or convey all portions of an EBT slow scientific progress and increase risk of usability issues that negatively impact uptake. We contend that a purposeful, functions-based approach should guide the selection, development, and application of technology in support of EBT delivery.

Original language	English (US)
Article number	106
Journal	Current psychiatry reports
Volume	21
Issue number	10
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-019-1092-2
State	Published - Oct 1 2019

Keywords

Digital
Evidence-based treatment
Mental health
Mobile applications
Telehealth
eHealth

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Psychiatry and Mental health

Access to Document

10.1007/s11920-019-1092-2

Cite this

@article{b1bd4c9703bc4e0e87ddd010b7a90e68,

title = "Adapting Evidence-Based Treatments for Digital Technologies: a Critical Review of Functions, Tools, and the Use of Branded Solutions",

abstract = "Purpose of Review: We provide a critical review of digital technologies in evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for mental health with a focus on the functions technologies are intended to serve. The review highlights issues related to clarity of purpose, usability, and assumptions related to EBT technology integration, branding, and packaging. Recent Findings: Developers continue to use technology in creative ways, often combining multiple functions to convey existing EBTs or to create new technology-enabled EBTs. Developers have a strong preference for creating and investigating whole-source, branded solutions related to specific EBTs, in comparison to developing or investigating technology tools related to specific components of behavior change, or developing specific clinical protocols that can be delivered via existing technologies. Summary: Default assumptions that new applications are required for each individual EBT, that EBTs are best served by the use of only one technology solution rather than multiple tools, and that an EBT-specific technology product should include or convey all portions of an EBT slow scientific progress and increase risk of usability issues that negatively impact uptake. We contend that a purposeful, functions-based approach should guide the selection, development, and application of technology in support of EBT delivery.",

keywords = "Digital, Evidence-based treatment, Mental health, Mobile applications, Telehealth, eHealth",

author = "Tuerk, {Peter W.} and Schaeffer, {Cindy M.} and McGuire, {Joseph F.} and {Adams Larsen}, Margo and Nicole Capobianco and John Piacentini",

note = "Funding Information: This work was partially supported by NIMH 5 R42 MH111277-03 (Tuerk, Piacentini), the Pettit Foundation (Piacentini, Tuerk), and NIMH R42 MH094019-05 9 (Tuerk). Funding Information: Peter W. Tuerk was partially supported by NIMH 5 R42 MH111277-03, the Pettit Foundation, and NIMH R42 MH094019-05 9. Dr. Turek is a consultant for Virtually Better Inc. and Cohen Veterans Network. These organizations did not support any aspect of the submitted work, but related research is referenced in the work so I am disclosing for transparency. Funding Information: Joseph F. McGuire receives research support from the Tourette Association of America and the American Academy of Neurology. He receives consulting fees from Brackett, Syneos Health, and Luminopia, and also receives book royalties from Elsevier. Funding Information: John Piacentini was partially supported by NIMH 5 R42 MH111277-03 and the Pettit Foundation. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.",

year = "2019",

month = oct,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1007/s11920-019-1092-2",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "21",

journal = "Current psychiatry reports",

issn = "1523-3812",

publisher = "Current Science, Inc.",

number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adapting Evidence-Based Treatments for Digital Technologies

T2 - a Critical Review of Functions, Tools, and the Use of Branded Solutions

AU - Tuerk, Peter W.

AU - Schaeffer, Cindy M.

AU - McGuire, Joseph F.

AU - Adams Larsen, Margo

AU - Capobianco, Nicole

AU - Piacentini, John

N1 - Funding Information: This work was partially supported by NIMH 5 R42 MH111277-03 (Tuerk, Piacentini), the Pettit Foundation (Piacentini, Tuerk), and NIMH R42 MH094019-05 9 (Tuerk). Funding Information: Peter W. Tuerk was partially supported by NIMH 5 R42 MH111277-03, the Pettit Foundation, and NIMH R42 MH094019-05 9. Dr. Turek is a consultant for Virtually Better Inc. and Cohen Veterans Network. These organizations did not support any aspect of the submitted work, but related research is referenced in the work so I am disclosing for transparency. Funding Information: Joseph F. McGuire receives research support from the Tourette Association of America and the American Academy of Neurology. He receives consulting fees from Brackett, Syneos Health, and Luminopia, and also receives book royalties from Elsevier. Funding Information: John Piacentini was partially supported by NIMH 5 R42 MH111277-03 and the Pettit Foundation. Publisher Copyright: © 2019, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

PY - 2019/10/1

Y1 - 2019/10/1

N2 - Purpose of Review: We provide a critical review of digital technologies in evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for mental health with a focus on the functions technologies are intended to serve. The review highlights issues related to clarity of purpose, usability, and assumptions related to EBT technology integration, branding, and packaging. Recent Findings: Developers continue to use technology in creative ways, often combining multiple functions to convey existing EBTs or to create new technology-enabled EBTs. Developers have a strong preference for creating and investigating whole-source, branded solutions related to specific EBTs, in comparison to developing or investigating technology tools related to specific components of behavior change, or developing specific clinical protocols that can be delivered via existing technologies. Summary: Default assumptions that new applications are required for each individual EBT, that EBTs are best served by the use of only one technology solution rather than multiple tools, and that an EBT-specific technology product should include or convey all portions of an EBT slow scientific progress and increase risk of usability issues that negatively impact uptake. We contend that a purposeful, functions-based approach should guide the selection, development, and application of technology in support of EBT delivery.

AB - Purpose of Review: We provide a critical review of digital technologies in evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for mental health with a focus on the functions technologies are intended to serve. The review highlights issues related to clarity of purpose, usability, and assumptions related to EBT technology integration, branding, and packaging. Recent Findings: Developers continue to use technology in creative ways, often combining multiple functions to convey existing EBTs or to create new technology-enabled EBTs. Developers have a strong preference for creating and investigating whole-source, branded solutions related to specific EBTs, in comparison to developing or investigating technology tools related to specific components of behavior change, or developing specific clinical protocols that can be delivered via existing technologies. Summary: Default assumptions that new applications are required for each individual EBT, that EBTs are best served by the use of only one technology solution rather than multiple tools, and that an EBT-specific technology product should include or convey all portions of an EBT slow scientific progress and increase risk of usability issues that negatively impact uptake. We contend that a purposeful, functions-based approach should guide the selection, development, and application of technology in support of EBT delivery.

KW - Digital

KW - Evidence-based treatment

KW - Mental health

KW - Mobile applications

KW - Telehealth

KW - eHealth

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072932806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072932806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11920-019-1092-2

DO - 10.1007/s11920-019-1092-2

M3 - Review article

C2 - 31584124

AN - SCOPUS:85072932806

SN - 1523-3812

VL - 21

JO - Current psychiatry reports

JF - Current psychiatry reports

IS - 10

M1 - 106

ER -

Adapting Evidence-Based Treatments for Digital Technologies: a Critical Review of Functions, Tools, and the Use of Branded Solutions

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this