Barriers to and Facilitators of Engaging With and Adhering to Guided Internet-Based Interventions for Depression Prevention and Reduction of Pain-Related Disability in Green Professions: Mixed Methods Study

Abstract

Background

Internet-based interventions (IBIs) are effective for the prevention and treatment of mental disorders and are valuable additions for improving routine care. However, the uptake of and adherence to IBIs are often limited. To increase the actual use of IBIs, it is important to identify factors for engaging with and adhering to IBIs.

Objective

We qualitatively evaluated barriers and facilitators regarding a portfolio of guided IBIs in green professions (farmers, gardeners, and foresters).

Methods

Interview participants were selected from 2 randomized controlled trials for either the prevention of depression (Prevention of Depression in Agriculturists [PROD-A]) or the reduction of pain interference (Preventive Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain in Agriculturists [PACT-A]) in green professions. The intervention group in PROD-A (N=180) participated in an IBI program, receiving access to 1 of 6 symptom-tailored IBIs. The intervention group in PACT-A (N=44) received access to an IBI for chronic pain. Overall, 41 semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Barriers and facilitators were identified via inductive qualitative content analysis, with 2 independent coders reaching almost perfect intercoder reliability (Cohen κ=0.92). A quantitative follow-up survey (30/41, 73%) was conducted to validate the results. Subgroup analyses were performed based on intervention characteristics.

Results

We identified 42 barriers and 26 facilitators, which we assigned to 4 superordinate categories related to the intervention (20 barriers; 17 facilitators), work (4 barriers; 1 facilitator), individual (13 barriers; 8 facilitators), and technical (5 barriers; 0 facilitators) aspects. Key barriers (identified by at least 50% of the interviewees) were time-consuming work life (29/40, 73%) and time-consuming private life (23/40, 58%). Similarly, the most frequently identified facilitators included presence of motivation, curiosity, interest and perseverance (30/40, 75%), flexible time management at work (25/40, 63%), and support from family and friends (20/40, 50%). Although agreement with barriers in the quantitative follow-up survey was rather low (mean 24%, SD 11%), agreement with facilitators was substantially higher (mean 80%, SD 13%). Differences in agreement rates were found particularly between intervention completers and noncompleters. Completers agreed significantly more often that perceived IBI success; being motivated, curious, interested, and perseverant; and having a persisting level of psychological strain have been facilitating. Noncompleters agreed more often with experiencing the e-coach contact as insufficient and technical problems as hindering for intervention completion.

Conclusions

Based on these results, strategies such as customization of modules for more flexible and adaptive use; video chat options with the e-coach; options to facilitate social support by family, friends, or other participants; or using prompts to facilitate training completion can be derived. These approaches could be evaluated in further quantitative research designs in terms of their potential to enhance intervention use in this occupational group.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00014000, https://tinyurl.com/3bukfr48; German Clinical Trials Register DRKS0001461, https://tinyurl.com/ebsn4sns