(PS9-A18) Perceptions and Use of Digital Mental Health Interventions for Suicide Risk

Background: The disparity between the limited number of available clinicians and the large unmet need for mental health services has led to the proliferation of digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) for conditions such as anxiety (Firth et al., 2018), depression (Himle et al., 2022), and controversially (Berman et al., 2019), for suicide prevention (Torok et al., 2020). It is thus important to understand the use and desired use of DMHIs among those with a history of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs).



Method: Data come from a survey investigating the treatment experiences of those with a history of STBs. Adult participants (N=111; MAge=38.56; 78.6% female) reported on their previous use of DMHIs for suicide prevention (DMHI-SP), their openness to using such DMHIs in the future, and their facilitators of and barriers (BACE; Clement et al., 2012) to treatment. Using multiple logistic regression, we sought to explain individuals’ previous and desired future use of DMHI-SP using their reports of facilitators of and barriers to treatment (i.e., attitudinal [e.g., “thinking that treatment would not help”], instrumental [e.g., “not being able to afford treatment”], and stigma-related [e.g., “concern that I might be seen as ‘crazy’”]).



Results: 19 participants (17%) reported previous use of DMHI-SP; 82 participants (74%), 14 of whom had previously used a DMHI-SP, endorsed being open to using a DMHI-SP in the future. The model explaining past use of DMHI-SP (yes/no) did not yield statistically significant results for facilitators (OR=1.72, 95%CI [0.72, 4.20], p=.22), instrumental barriers (OR=1.06, 95%CI [0.39, 3.02], p</span>=.91), stigma-related barriers (OR=1.11, 95%CI [0.47, 2.83], p=.82), or attitudinal barriers (OR=0.44, 95%CI [0.10, 1.62], p=.24). The model explaining openness to future use of DMHI-SP (yes/no), while controlling for previous use of DMHI-SP, also did not yield statistically significant results for facilitators (OR=0.81, 95%CI [0.38, 1.76], p=.59), instrumental barriers (OR=0.66, 95%CI [0.27, 1.52], p=.34), stigma-related barriers (OR=0.88, 95%CI [0.41, 1.80], p=.72), or attitudinal barriers (OR=0.89, 95%CI [0.28, 2.98], p=.85).



Discussion: Despite few participants reporting use of DMHI-SP, the majority endorsed an openness to trying digital interventions in the future; while DMHI-SP may not be widely utilized, openness to their use will be advantageous if and when such interventions are proven safe and effective. Neither facilitators nor barriers to treatment significantly predicted past or desired future use of DMHI-SP. However, a comparison of the ORs of the BACE subscales revealed that only attitudinal barriers are associated with a decreased probability of having used a DMHI, albeit insignificantly. This may suggest that the putative benefits of DMHIs (e.g., ease of access) are not sufficiently appealing to those who hold negative attitudes toward treatment overall. Future work with larger samples should continue to refine and test DMHI-SP, while also exploring predictors of individuals’ use and desired use of these interventions.