Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth, aged 15 to 24 years, are more likely to experience mental health (MH) or substance use issues than other age groups. This is a critical period for intervention because MH disorders, if left unattended, may become chronic and serious and negatively affect many aspects of a young person's life. Even among those who are treated, poor outcomes will still occur for a percentage of youth. Electronic MH (eMH) tools have been implemented in traditional MH settings to reach youth requiring assistance with MH and substance use issues. However, the utility of eMH tools in school settings has yet to be investigated. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to gain an understanding of the perspectives of key school staff stakeholders regarding barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Innowell eMH platform in secondary schools across the province of Alberta, Canada. METHODS: Guided by a qualitative descriptive approach, focus groups were conducted to elicit stakeholder perspectives on the perceived implementation challenges and opportunities of embedding the Innowell eMH platform in secondary school MH services. In total, 8 focus groups were conducted with 52 key school staff stakeholders. RESULTS: Themes related to barriers and facilitators to youth and school MH care professional (MHCP) capacity in implementing and using eMH tools were identified. With respect to youth capacity barriers, the following themes were inductively generated: (1) concerns about some students not being suitable for eMH services, (2) minors requiring consent from parents or caregivers to use eMH services as well as confidentiality and privacy concerns, and (3) limited access to technology and internet service among youth. A second theme related to school MHCP barriers to implementation, which included (1) feeling stretched with high caseloads and change fatigue, (2) concerns with risk and liability, and (3) unmasking MH issues in the face of limited resources. In contrast to the barriers to youth and MHCP capacity, many facilitators to implementation were discussed. Youth capacity facilitators included (1) the potential for youth to be empowered using eMH tools, (2) the platform fostering therapeutic relationships with school personnel, and (3) enhancing access to needed services and resources. MHCP capacity facilitators to implementation were (1) system transformation through flexibility and problem-solving, (2) opportunities for collaboration with youth and MHCPs and across different systems, and (3) an opportunity for the continuity of services. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight nuanced school MHCP perspectives that demonstrate critical youth and MHCP capacity concerns, with consideration for organizational factors that may impede or enhance the implementation processes for embedding eMH in a school context. The barriers and facilitators to implementation provide future researchers and decision makers with challenges and opportunities that could be addressed in the preimplementation phase.