Author
Abstract
Welfare systems around the world are struggling to cope with the growing number of people needing psychiatric care. Consequently, digitalization has become a beacon of hope, making treatment more accessible and bolstering patient empowerment. However, scholars have shown that digital divides prevail. This study examines the social sustainability of digital psychiatry by illuminating patient perspectives on mental health digital solutions (MHDS) in Denmark. This is done via a unique survey sample from register data of 1,478 adults in psychiatric treatment in 2023. First, the study examines the association between seven predictors—socioeconomic position, severity of mental illness, age, gender, geographic location, migrant status, and social support—and MHDS usage via binary logistic regression analysis. The analysis reveals a social stratification behind the usage of MHDS. Second, the study conducts two latent class analyses—one for MHDS users and one for non‐users—to identify underlying groups that characterize patient perspectives on MHDS. For the users, the analysis reveals latent classes characterized by experiences of participation as well as isolation. For the non‐users, the analysis highlights latent classes characterized by few barriers to using MHDS as well as by multiple barriers related to the limited affordances of MHDS. Lastly, the study uses multinomial logistic regression analysis to examine the association between the predictors and the latent classes, showing that latent class membership has a social component. Taken together, the findings indicate that social and digital inequalities are intertwined. To become socially sustainable, digital initiatives should complement, and not replace, in‐person treatment.
Suggested Citation
Emilie Kristine Dyrlev, 2025.
"Potentials and Pitfalls of Self‐Help Tools: A Survey Study of Digital Psychiatry in Denmark,"
Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
Handle:
RePEc:cog:socinc:v13:y:2025:a:9990
DOI: 10.17645/si.9990
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v13:y:2025:a:9990. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.