Digital therapeutics in the hospital for suicide crisis – content and design recommendations from young people and hospital staff

Abstract

Objective: Hospital emergency departments lack the resources to adequately support young people who present for suicidal crisis. Digital therapeutics could fill this service gap by providing psychological support without creating additional burden on hospital staff. However, existing research on what is needed for successful integration of digital therapeutics in hospital settings is scant. Thus, this study sought to identify key considerations for implementing digital therapeutics to manage acute suicidal distress in hospitals. Method: Participants were 17 young people who recently presented at the hospital for suicide-related crisis, and 12 hospital staff who regularly interacted with young people experiencing mental ill-health in their day-to-day work. Interviews were conducted via videoconference. Framework analysis and reflexive thematic analysis were used to interpret the data obtained. Results: Qualitative insights were centred around three major themes: hospital-specific content, therapeutic content, and usability. Digital therapeutics were seen as a useful means for facilitating hospital-based assessment and treatment planning, and for conducting post-discharge check-ins. Therapeutic content should be focused on helping young people self-manage suicide-related distress while they wait for in-person services. Features to promote usability, such as the availability of customisable features and the use of inclusive design or language, should be considered in the design of digital therapeutics. Conclusions: Digital therapeutics in hospital settings need to benefit both patients and staff. Given the unique context of the hospital setting and acute nature of suicidal distress, creating specialty digital therapeutics may be more viable than integrating existing ones.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.