The Promise of Digital Mental Health for LGBTQ+ Youths

Updates on digital mental health interventions for children and young people: systematic overview of reviews

Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) are increasingly recommended for children and young people (CYP) as a promising way to prevent and treat mental health problems. Here, we summarised and consolidated findings from existing systematic reviews to provide an overview of what is known, and which areas need further investigation. Systematic searches were conducted until January 2024 using PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus and Google Scholar. Records were screened against predefined criteria and quality assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews. A study protocol was co-developed with key stakeholders and registered on the Open Science Framework. From 941 records, 51 systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2023 of generally moderate quality, targeting CYP 0 to 25 years, were included in our narrative summary. DMHIs were delivered in a variety of ways, including online video calls, apps and various combinations, underpinned mostly by cognitive behaviour therapy. DMHIs supported different mental health problems, but mostly symptoms of anxiety and/or depression. Although generally effective, some studies reported mixed results with limited evidence when focusing on longer-term outcomes. Other benefits of DMHIs included reduced costs and time investments for families, and increased accessibility and acceptability of support. Practitioner preparedness and unclear ethics/safety measures were identified as factors impacting engagement and potential effectiveness. The findings suggest that DMHIs can be a valuable tool for supporting CYP. However, realising the full potential of DMHIs for all CYP may require more high-quality research utilising DMHIs that are diverse in theoretical underpinnings and target audiences.

Healthcare providers perspectives on digital, self-guided mental health programs for LGBTQIA+ individuals: A cross-sectional online survey

Digital, self-guided mental health programs are a promising avenue for mental health support for LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, Queer, intersex, asexual plus additional sexuality, gender, and romantic identities) people - however, healthcare providers (HCPs) perspectives on programs are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to explore these perspectives. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed across Australia, with a final sample of 540 HCPs from a range of disciplines. Most respondents (419, 81.2 %), reported that digital, self-guided mental health programs would be useful, but 74.5 % (n = 380) also reported that they had concerns. Thematic analysis of open-text responses showed that HCPs believe programs may help overcome access barriers and could be useful as part of a wider care journey. Others were concerned about patient safety, and whether programs could be appropriately tailored to LGBTQIA+ experiences. Content analysis of open-text responses showed affirming language and imagery, content on LGBTQIA+ people's unique challenges, wider health information, and connections to community were important to include in programs. HCPs advocated for programs that offered broad and sub-population specific information. These findings show that HCPs are enthusiastic about digital, self-guided mental health programs, but care should be taken to address key concerns to facilitate future implementation.

Development and codesign of flourish: A digital suicide prevention intervention for LGBTQ+ youth who have experienced online victimization

Background

LGBTQ+ youth experience disproportionately high rates of online victimization (OV), referring to harmful remarks, images, or behaviors in online settings, which is associated with suicidal risk. Current services have gaps in supporting LGBTQ+ youth facing OV events. To address these gaps, this study aims to develop Flourish, a digital suicide prevention intervention for LGBTQ+ youth who have experienced OV.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 LGBTQ+ youth with past-year history of OV and lifetime history of suicidality, 11 of their parents, and 10 LGBTQ+-serving professionals. Subsequently, an iterative codesign process was conducted with 22 youth through individual and group design sessions, followed by usability testing. Data were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using a qualitative description approach, and data from design sessions and usability testing were analyzed using rapid qualitative techniques.

Results

Interviews with youth, parents, and professionals suggested preferences for Flourish to be a partially automated, text message intervention leveraging web-based content that is a safe space for LGBTQ+ youth to seek support for OV through education, coping skills, and help-seeking resources. School and mental health services professionals considered the potential for implementing Flourish within youth services settings. Usability testing, assessed through the System Usability Scale, yielded an average rating of 91, indicating excellent perceived usability.

Conclusions

Flourish has potential to be an acceptable intervention to support LGBTQ+ youth following OV. Future steps will include testing the feasibility and efficacy of Flourish and further examining Flourish's potential for implementation within services for LGBTQ+ youth.

Digital mental health interventions: A narrative review of what is important from the perspective of LGBTQIA+ people

OBJECTIVES

Digital mental health interventions are a promising therapeutic modality to provide psychological support to LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, Queer, intersex, asexual, plus other gender, sexual, and romantic minority identities) people. The aim of this narrative review is to explore how the LGBTQIA+ community has been engaged in the design of digital mental health interventions, how content has been tailored to the LGBTQIA+ community, and features identified as important by LGBTQIA+ participants.

METHODS

A total of 33 studies were included in this review from a larger yield of 1933 identified from systematic searches of five databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHAL, and Medline). Data were analyzed narratively and using content analysis.

RESULTS

Only half of the studies reported engaging the LGBTQIA+ community in intervention designs. Interventions have been tailored in a variety of ways to support LGBTQIA+ individuals-such as through affirming imagery, recruitment through LGBTQIA+ networks, and designing content to focus specifically on LGBTQIA+ issues. A range of features were identified as important for participants, namely how content was tailored to LGBTQIA+ experiences, providing connection to community, and links to other relevant LGBTQIA+ resources. While not a primary aim, results also showed that a wide range of digital modalities can significantly improve a range of mental health problems.

CONCLUSION

Digital interventions are an acceptable and effective form of therapeutic intervention, but future research needs to focus on meaningful engagement of community members to inform design and implementation.

Cultural Responsivity in Technology-Enabled Services: Integrating Culture Into Technology and Service Components

Technology-enabled services (TESs) are clinical interventions that combine technological and human components to provide health services. TESs for mental health are efficacious in the treatment of anxiety and depression and are currently being offered as frontline treatments around the world. It is hoped that these interventions will be able to reach diverse populations across a range of identities and ultimately decrease disparities in mental health treatment. However, this hope is largely unrealized. TESs include both technology and human service components, and we argue that cultural responsivity must be considered in each of these components to help address existing treatment disparities. To date, there is limited guidance on how to consider cultural responsivity within these interventions, including specific targets for the development, tailoring, or design of the technologies and services within TESs. In response, we propose a framework that provides specific recommendations for targets based on existing models, both at the technological component level (informed by the Behavioral Intervention Technology Model) and the human support level (informed by the Efficiency Model of Support). We hope that integrating culturally responsive considerations into these existing models will facilitate increased attention to cultural responsivity within TESs to ensure they are ethical and responsive for everyone.