JMIR Mental Health
Internet interventions, technologies and digital innovations for mental health and behaviour change
Journal Description
JMIR Mental Health (JMH, ISSN 2368-7959) is a PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed sister journal of JMIR, the leading eHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175).
JMIR Mental Health focusses on digital health and Internet interventions, technologies and electronic innovations (software and hardware) for mental health, addictions, online counselling and behaviour change. This includes formative evaluation and system descriptions, theoretical papers, review papers, viewpoint/vision papers, and rigorous evaluations.
JMIR Mental Health publishes even faster and has a broader scope with including papers which are more technical or more formative/developmental than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
JMIR Mental Health features a rapid and thorough peer-review process, professional copyediting, professional production of PDF, XHTML, and XML proofs. The journal is indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, and ESCI (Emerging Sources Citation Index).
JMIR Mental Health adheres to the same quality standards as JMIR and all articles published here are also cross-listed in the Table of Contents of JMIR, the worlds' leading medical journal in health sciences / health services research and health informatics.
Editorial Board members are currently being recruited, please contact us if you are interested (jmir.editorial.office at gmail.com).
Recent Articles:
-
Jun 23, 2017
-
Jun 23, 2017
-
Jun 8, 2017
-
Jun 6, 2017
-
May 31, 2017
-
May 30, 2017
-
May 29, 2017
-
May 25, 2017
-
May 17, 2017
-
Apr 24, 2017
-
Apr 10, 2017
-
Apr 3, 2017
Latest Submissions Open for Peer-Review:
View All Open Peer Review Articles-
A comparison of self-reported telephone interview and online survey responses: findings from the Second Australian Young and Well National Survey
Date Submitted: Jun 16, 2017
Open Peer Review Period: Jun 16, 2017 - Aug 11, 2017
Background: Online self-report surveying has increased in popularity as it can rapidly yield large samples at low cost. Despite this popularity, in the area of youth mental health there is a distinct...
Background: Online self-report surveying has increased in popularity as it can rapidly yield large samples at low cost. Despite this popularity, in the area of youth mental health there is a distinct lack of research comparing the results of online self-report surveys to the more traditional and widely accepted computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI). Objective: The Second Australian Young and Well National Survey 2014 sought to compare differences in respondent response patterns using matched items on a CATI vs an online self-report survey. Additional objectives were to examine whether responses varied as a result of item sensitivity; that is, the item’s susceptibility to exaggeration on under-reporting, and to assess whether certain subgroups demonstrated this effect to a greater extent. Methods: A sub-sample of young people aged 16 to 25 years (N=101), recruited through the Second Australian Young and Well National Survey 2014, completed the identical items on two occasions, via CATI and online self-report survey. Respondents also rated perceived item sensitivity. Results: When comparing CATI to online self-report survey, a Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis showed that respondents answered 14 of the 42 matched items in a significantly different way, many of which were perceived as highly sensitive in nature (62.5% ‘high sensitivity’ items, 42.9% ‘neutral sensitivity’ items, 0% ‘low sensitivity’ items). The items which were perceived as highly sensitive by respondents and demonstrated variability included: sexting activities, body image concerns, experience of diagnosis and suicidal ideation. For ‘high sensitivity’ items, a regression analysis showed respondents who were male (β = -.19, P = .05) or were not in employment, education or training (NEET: β= -.32, P = .001) were significantly more likely to provide different responses on matched items when responding in the CATI as compared to online self-report survey. The online self-report survey, however, demonstrated some evidence of avidity and attrition bias. Conclusions: Compared to CATI, online self-report surveys are highly cost-effective and had higher rates of self-disclosure on sensitive items; particularly for respondents who identify as male and NEET. A drawback to online surveying methodologies, however, includes the limited control over avidity bias and the greater incidence of attrition bias. These findings have important implications for further development of survey methods in the area of health and wellbeing, especially when considering research topics (in this case mental health, sexting and body image) and groups that are being recruited (young people, males and NEET).
-
User Participation and Engagement with the See Me Smoke-Free mHealth App: Results of a Prospective Feasibility Trial
Date Submitted: Apr 21, 2017
Open Peer Review Period: May 31, 2017 - Jul 14, 2017
Background: The See Me Smoke-Free (SMSF) mobile health (mHealth) application (app) was developed to help women quit smoking by targeting concerns about body weight, body image, and self-efficacy throu...
Background: The See Me Smoke-Free (SMSF) mobile health (mHealth) application (app) was developed to help women quit smoking by targeting concerns about body weight, body image, and self-efficacy through cognitive behavioral techniques and guided imagery audio files addressing smoking, diet, and physical activity. A feasibility trial found associations between SMSF usage and positive treatment outcomes. This paper reports a detailed exploration of program use among those who downloaded the app, and the relationship between program use and treatment outcomes. Objective: To determine whether: 1) participants were more likely to set quit dates, be current smokers, and report higher levels of smoking at baseline than non-participants; 2) participants opened the app and listened to audio files more frequently than non-participants; and 3) participants with more app usage had a higher likelihood of smoking abstinence at follow-up. Methods: The SMSF feasibility trial was a single arm, within-subjects, prospective cohort study with assessments at baseline, 30- and 90-days post-enrollment. The SMSF app was deployed on the Google Play store for download, and basic profile characteristics were obtained for all app installers. Additional variables were assessed for study participants. Participants were prompted to use the app daily during study participation. Crude differences in baseline characteristics between trial participants and non-participants were evaluated using t-tests (continuous variables) and Fisher’s exact tests (categorical variables). Exact Poisson tests were used to assess group-level differences in mean usage rates over the full study period, using aggregate Google Analytics data on participation and usage. Negative binomial regression models were used to estimate associations of app usage with participant baseline characteristics, after adjustment for putative confounders. Associations between app usage and smoking abstinence were assessed using separate logistic regression models for each outcome measure. Results: Participants (n=151) were more likely than non-participants (n=96) to report female gender (P < 0.02) and smoking in the 30 days prior to enrollment (P < 0.0001). Participants and non-participants opened the app and updated quit dates at the same average rate (Rate ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.04; P = 0.43), but participants started audio files (RR 1.07; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.13; P < 0.04) and completed audio files (RR 1.11; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.18; P < 0.003) at significantly higher rates than non-participants. Higher app usage among participants was generally associated with increased smoking cessation, and most effect sizes suggested strong associations, though generally without statistical significance. Conclusions: The current study suggests potential efficacy of the SMSF app, as increased usage was generally associated with higher smoking abstinence. A planned randomized controlled trial will assess the SMSF app’s efficacy as an intervention tool to help women quit smoking. Clinical Trial: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02972515
-
Low- and No-Cost Strategies to Recruit Women to a Mobile Health Smoking Cessation Trial
Date Submitted: Jan 19, 2017
Open Peer Review Period: May 31, 2017 - Jul 14, 2017
Background: Successful recruitment and retention of adequate numbers of participants to mobile health (mHealth) studies remains a challenge. Given that researchers must decide how to invest limited re...
Background: Successful recruitment and retention of adequate numbers of participants to mobile health (mHealth) studies remains a challenge. Given that researchers must decide how to invest limited recruitment resources, it is important to identify the most effective recruitment strategies, defined as those that incur low costs relative to participant yield. Objective: The objective of this manuscript is to describe the development and implementation process for the recruitment phase of an mHealth intervention designed to increase smoking cessation among weight-concerned women smokers. These recruitment methods could be applicable across a range of mHealth studies. Methods: Study information was released to the media in multiple phases. First, local city and state media were contacted, followed by national women’s health media, and finally outlets in states with high smoking rates. Stories and mentions resulting from the press releases (earned media) were disseminated via existing department and new study-specific social media accounts. Strategic hashtags were used in Facebook and Twitter posts to connect with broader smoking cessation campaigns. Posts were also made to third-party Facebook smoking cessation communities and Internet classifieds sites. Results: Media coverage was documented across 75 publications and radio/television broadcasts, 35 of which were local, 39 national, and 1 international. Between March 30th and July 31st, 2015, 151 participants were successfully recruited to the study. Conclusions: Leveraging social media, and coordinating with university public affairs offices were effective and low-cost strategies to earn media coverage, and reach potential participants. Clinical Trial: Not Applicable
