Background: Despite the significant body of evidence on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of internet interventions, the implementation of such programs in Portugal is virtually non-existent. In addition, Portuguese psychologists’ use and their attitudes towards such interventions is largely unknown.Objective: The aim of this study was to explore Portuguese psychologists’ knowledge, training, use and attitudes towards internet interventions; to investigate perceived advantages and limitations of such interventions; identify potential drivers and barriers impacting implementation; and study potential factors associated to previous use and attitudes towards internet interventions.Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was developed by the authors and disseminated by the Portuguese Psychologists Association to its members.Results: A total of 1077 members of the Portuguese Psychologists Association responded to the questionnaire between November 2018 and February 2019. Of these, 37.2% (N=363) were familiar with internet interventions and 19.2% (N=188) considered having the necessary training to work within the field. 29.6% (N=319) of participants reported to have used some form of digital technology to deliver care in the past. Telephone (23.8%; N=256), e-mail (16.2%; N=175) and SMS (16.1%; N=173) services were among the most adopted forms of digital technology, while guided (1.3%; N=14) and unguided (1.5%; N=16) internet interventions were rarely used. Accessibility (79.9%; N=860), convenience (45.7%; N=492) and cost-effectiveness (45.5%; N=490) were considered the most important advantages of internet interventions. Conversely, ethical concerns (40.7%; N=438), client’s ICT illiteracy (43.2%; N=465) and negative attitudes towards internet interventions (37%; N=398) were identified as the main limitations. An assessment of participants attitudes towards internet interventions revealed a slightly negative/neutral stance (Median=46.21; SD=15.06) and revealed greater acceptability towards blended treatment interventions (62.9%; N=615) when compared to standalone internet interventions (18.6%; N=181). Significant associations were found between knowledge (χ24=90.4; P<.001), training (χ24=94.6; P<.001), attitudes (χ23=38.4; P<.001) and previous use of internet interventions and between knowledge (χ212=109.7; P<.001), training (χ212=64.7; P<.001) and attitudes towards such interventions, with psychologists reporting to be ignorant and not having adequate training in the field, being more likely to present more negative attitudes towards these interventions and not having prior experience in its implementation.Conclusions: This study revealed that most Portuguese psychologists are not familiar with and have no training or prior experience using internet interventions and had a slightly negative/neutral attitude towards such interventions. There was greater acceptability towards blended treatment interventions compared to standalone internet interventions. Lack of knowledge and training were identified as the main barriers to overcome, underlining the need of promoting awareness and training initiatives to ensure internet interventions successful implementation.

Background: Despite the potential of digital mental health to provide cost-effective mental health care, its adoption in clinical settings is limited, and little is known about the perspectives and practices of mental health professionals regarding its implementation or the factors influencing these perspectives and practices. Objective: This study aims to characterize in depth the perspectives and practices of mental health professionals regarding the implementation of digital mental health and explore the factors affecting such perspectives and practices. Methods: A qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews with Portuguese mental health professionals (N=13)—psychologists and psychiatrists—was conducted. The transcribed interviews were thematically analyzed. Results: Mental health professionals deemed important or engaged in the following practices during the implementation of digital mental health: indication evaluation, therapeutic contract negotiation, digital psychological assessment, technology setup and management, and intervention delivery and follow-up. Low-threshold accessibility and professionals’ perceived duty to provide support to their clients facilitated the implementation of digital mental health. Conversely, the lack of structured intervention frameworks; the unavailability of usable, validated, and affordable technology; and the absence of structured training programs inhibited digital mental health implementation by mental health professionals. Conclusions: The publication of practice frameworks, development of evidence-based technology, and delivery of structured training seem key to expediting implementation and encouraging the sustained adoption of digital mental health by mental health professionals.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in changes in healthcare use. This study aimed to identify factors associated with a patient’s decision to avoid and/or delay healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used data from a community-based survey in Portugal from July 2020 to August 2021, “COVID-19 Barometer: Social Opinion”, which included data regarding health services use, risk perception and confidence in health services. We framed our analysis under Andersen’s Behavioural Model of Health Services Use and utilised Poisson regression to identify healthcare avoidance associated factors. Healthcare avoidance was high (44%). Higher prevalence of healthcare avoidance was found among women; participants who reported lower confidence in the healthcare system response to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19; lost income during the pandemic; experienced negative emotions due to physical distancing measures; answered the questionnaire before middle June 2021; and perceived having worse health, the measures implemented by the Government as inadequate, the information conveyed as unclear and confusing, a higher risk of getting COVID-19, a higher risk of complications and a higher risk of getting infected in a health institution. It is crucial to reassure the population that health services are safe. Health services should plan their recovery since delays in healthcare delivery can lead to increased or worsening morbidity, yielding economic and societal costs.

COVID-19 mitigation measures present unprecedented challenges in mental healthcare delivery, posing high risk to the mental health of at-risk populations, namely patients diagnosed with COVID-19, frontline healthcare providers, and those submitted to quarantine or isolation measures, as well as the general population. Ensuring safe and equitable access to mental healthcare by these groups entails resorting to innovative psychosocial intervention strategies, such as digital mental health. In this perspective piece, we describe the impact of COVID-19 on the Portuguese population's mental health, present an overview on initiatives developed to address the challenges currently faced by the Portuguese mental healthcare system, and discuss how the timely implementation of a comprehensive digital mental health strategy, coupling research, education, implementation, and quality assessment initiatives, might buffer COVID-19's impact on the Portuguese society.

Internet-delivered interventions can provide remarkable opportunities in addressing breast cancer survivors' unmet support care needs, as they present an effective strategy to improve care coordination and provide access to efficacious, cost-efficient and convenient survivorship care. Nevertheless, research focusing on improving survivors' psychosocial needs using internet-based tools is scarce and its practical implementation is limited. To study the acceptability, feasibility, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of iNNOVBC, a 10 weeks guided internet-delivered individually-tailored Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)-influenced cognitive behavioural (CBT) intervention developed to improve mild to moderate anxiety and depression in Breast cancer survivors when compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in a waiting list control group (WLC). A two-arm, parallel, open label, multicentre, waiting list randomized controlled trial will be conducted to investigate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of INNOVBC. The primary outcomes in this research will be anxiety and depression. Secondary outcomes will include psychological flexibility, fatigue, insomnia, sexual dysfunction and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). This study has been reviewed and approved by Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados; Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto Francisco Gentil; Unidade Local de Saúde de Matosinhos, EPE; Centro Hospitalar de São João and Ordem dos Psicólogos ethical committees. It is anticipated that iNNOVBC will show to be an efficacious and cost-effective program in improving the outcomes of interest in this study, as opposed to a WLC under TAU. The results of this research will be published in accordance with CONSORT-EHEALTH guidelines. This study will inform on the acceptability, feasibility, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of iNNOVBC, in improving psychosocial outcomes in breast cancer survivors when compared to TAU in a WLC. Its conclusions will contribute to understand the idiosyncrasies of designing and implementing internet-delivered interventions in breast cancer survivors.Trial Registration code: INNOVBC (NCT03275727).

Background: Despite the efficacy of psychosocial interventions in minimizing psychosocial morbidity in breast cancer survivors (BCSs), intervention delivery across survivorship is limited by physical, organizational, and attitudinal barriers, which contribute to a mental health care treatment gap in cancer settings. Objective: The aim of this study is to develop iNNOV Breast Cancer (iNNOVBC), a guided, internet-delivered, individually tailored, acceptance and commitment therapy–influenced cognitive behavioral intervention program aiming to treat mild to moderate anxiety and depression in BCSs as well as to improve fatigue, insomnia, sexual dysfunction, and health-related quality of life in this group. This study also aims to evaluate the usefulness, usability, and preliminary feasibility of iNNOVBC. Methods: iNNOVBC was developed using a user-centered design approach involving its primary and secondary end users, that is, BCSs (11/24, 46%) and mental health professionals (13/24, 54%). We used mixed methods, namely in-depth semistructured interviews, laboratory-based usability tests, short-term field trials, and surveys, to assess iNNOVBC’s usefulness, usability, and preliminary feasibility among these target users. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample, evaluate performance data, and assess survey responses. Qualitative data were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed. Results: Overall, participants considered iNNOVBC highly useful, with most participants reporting on the pertinence of its scope, the digital format, the relevant content, and the appropriate features. However, various usability issues were identified, and participants suggested that the program should be refined by simplifying navigation paths, using a more dynamic color scheme, including more icons and images, displaying information in different formats and versions, and developing smartphone and tablet versions. In addition, participants suggested that tables should be converted into plain textboxes and data visualization dashboards should be included to facilitate the tracking of progress. The possibility of using iNNOVBC in a flexible manner, tailoring it according to BCSs’ changing needs and along the cancer care continuum, was another suggestion that was identified. Conclusions: The study results suggest that iNNOVBC is considered useful by both BCSs and mental health professionals, configuring a promising point-of-need solution to bridge the psychological supportive care gap experienced by BCSs across the survivorship trajectory. We believe that our results may be applicable to other similar programs. However, to fulfill their full supportive role, such programs should be comprehensive, highly usable, and tailorable and must adopt a flexible yet integrated structure capable of evolving in accordance with survivors’ changing needs and the cancer continuum.