Aref-Adib, G; Landy, G; Eskinazi, M; Sommerlad, A; Morant, N; Johnson, S; Graham, R; ... Pitman, A; + view all Aref-Adib, G; Landy, G; Eskinazi, M; Sommerlad, A; Morant, N; Johnson, S; Graham, R; Osborn, D; Pitman, A; - view fewer (2020) Assessing ‘Digital Risk’ in Psychiatric Patients: A Mixed Methods Study of Psychiatry Trainees’ Experiences, Views, and Understanding. JMIR Mental Health , 7 (7) , Article e19008. 10.2196/19008.

Preview

Text Johnson_pdf.pdf - Published Version Download (151kB) | Preview

Abstract

Background: The use of digital technology can help people access information and provide support for their mental health problems, but it can also expose them to risk, such as bullying or prosuicide websites. It may be important to consider internet-related risk behavior (digital risk) within a generic psychiatric risk assessment, but no studies have explored the practice or acceptability of this among psychiatrists. Objective: This study aimed to explore psychiatry trainees’ experiences, views, and understanding of digital risk in psychiatry. We predicted that clinician awareness would be highest among trainees who work in child and adolescent mental health services. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of psychiatry trainees attending a UK regional trainees’ conference to investigate how they routinely assess patients’ internet use and related risk of harm and their experience and confidence in assessing these risks. We conducted focus groups to further explore trainees’ understandings and experiences of digital risk assessment. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests were used to present the quantitative data. A thematic analysis was used to identify the key themes in the qualitative data set. Results: The cross-sectional survey was completed by 113 out of 312 psychiatry trainees (response rate 36.2%), from a range of subspecialties and experience levels. Half of the trainees (57/113, 50.4%) reported treating patients exposed to digital risk, particularly trainees subspecializing in child and adolescent psychiatry (17/22, 77% vs 40/91, 44%;P=.02). However, 67.3% (76/113) reported not feeling competent to assess digital risk. Child and adolescent psychiatrists were more likely than others to ask patients routinely about specific digital risk domains, including reckless web-based behavior (18/20, 90% vs 54/82, 66%; P=.03), prosuicide websites (20/21, 95% vs 57/81, 70%; P=.01), and online sexual behavior (17/21, 81% vs 44/81, 54%; P=.02). Although 84.1% (95/113) of the participants reported using a proforma to record general risk assessment, only 5% (5/95) of these participants prompted an assessment of internet use. Only 9.7% (11/113) of the trainees had received digital risk training, and 73.5% (83/113) reported that they would value this. Our thematic analysis of transcripts from 3 focus groups (comprising 11 trainees) identified 2 main themes: barriers to assessment and management of digital risk, and the double-edged sword of web use. Barriers reported included the novelty and complexity of the internet, a lack of confidence and guidance in addressing internet use directly, and ongoing tension between assessment and privacy. Conclusions: Although it is common for psychiatrists to encounter patients subject to digital risk, trainee psychiatrists lack competence and confidence in their assessment. Training in digital risk and the inclusion of prompts in standardized risk proformas would promote good clinical practice and prevent a potential blind spot in general risk assessment.

Download activity - last month

Export as JSONCSVXML

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as JSONCSVXML

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item