Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the demonstrated efficacy and potential scalability of self-guided digital treatments for common mental health conditions, there is substantial variability in their uptake and engagement. This study explored the decision-making processes, influences and support needs of people taking up a self-guided digital treatment for anxiety and/or depression. METHODS: Australian-based adults (n = 20) were purposively sampled from a trial of self-guided digital mental health treatment. One-to-one, semistructured interviews were conducted, based on the Ottawa Decision-Support Framework. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using framework methods. Baseline sociodemographic, clinical and decision-making characteristics were also collected. RESULTS: Analyses yielded four themes. Theme 1 captured participants' openness to try self-guided digital treatment, despite limited deliberation on potential downsides or alternative options. Theme 2 highlighted that immediacy and ease of access were major drivers of uptake, which participants contrasted with gaps in access and continuity of care in face-to-face services, especially rurally. Theme 3 centred on participants as the main agents in their decision-making, with family and health professional attitudes also reportedly influencing decision-making. Theme 4 revealed participants' primary motivations for deciding to take up treatment (e.g., the potential to increase insight and coping skills), while also acknowledging that pre-existing characteristics (e.g., health and digital literacy, insight) determined participants' personal suitability for self-guided digital treatment. CONCLUSION: Findings help to elucidate the decision-making influences and processes amongst people who started a self-guided treatment for depression and anxiety. Additional information and decision support resources appear warranted, which may also improve the accessibility of self-guided treatments. PUBLIC OR PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients were interviewed about their views and experiences of decision-making about accessing and taking up treatment. As such, patient contribution to the research was as study participants.