This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Health Behaviours in Human Factors Research (92) Digital Mental Health Interventions, e-Mental Health and Cyberpsychology (2224) Innovations in Mental Health Systems (503) Knowledge and Attitudes of Mental Health Professionals towards Digital Interventions (44) Users' and Patients' Needs for Mental Health Services (524) Migrants and Refugees Health (32)

Published on in Vol 13 (2026)

This is a member publication of Bibsam Consortium

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/75263, first published .
Understanding Psychologists’ Usage, Knowledge, and Attitudes Toward Digital Mental Health Solutions for Refugees and Migrants: Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey in Sweden

Understanding Psychologists’ Usage, Knowledge, and Attitudes Toward Digital Mental Health Solutions for Refugees and Migrants: Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey in Sweden

Understanding Psychologists’ Usage, Knowledge, and Attitudes Toward Digital Mental Health Solutions for Refugees and Migrants: Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey in Sweden

Authors of this article:

Kristofer Vernmark1 Author Orcid Image ;   Anahita Geranmayeh2 Author Orcid Image ;   Naira Topooco3 Author Orcid Image ;   Gerhard Andersson1, 4, 5 Author Orcid Image ;   Shervin Shahnavaz2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Original Paper

    1Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    2Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, & Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm, Region Stockholm, Sweden

    3Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    4Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    5Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    Corresponding Author:

    Kristofer Vernmark, PhD

    Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning

    Linköping University

    Campus Valla

    Linköping, 58183

    Sweden

    Phone: 46 733211074

    Email: kristofer.vernmark@liu.se


    Background: The rising number of refugees and migrants has created growing mental health needs that health care systems struggle to address. Providing assessment and treatment for mental health problems in a digital format could help increase access to care and facilitate the provision of adapted interventions. Psychologists are key stakeholders in the delivery and influence of clinical services within routine care settings, but there are limited data on their perspectives regarding the use of digital solutions to assess and treat common mental health problems in refugees and migrants.

    Objective: This study aimed to examine psychologists’ usage, knowledge, and attitudes toward digital mental health solutions for assessing and treating common mental health problems in refugees and migrants within the Swedish health care system.

    Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among psychologists in Sweden between December 2023 and February 2024. Responses included Likert-scale items and categorical variables, which were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent samples t tests, and Fisher exact test to explore differences between subgroups.

    Results: A total of 81 psychologists responded to the survey. Among them, 58 (72%) were women, and nearly half (40/81, 49%) worked in a public health care region. Respondents showed the highest acceptance for guided internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT), blended treatment, and videoconferencing therapy. Only 20% (16/81) reported using digital solutions for refugees or migrants with mental health problems. Most respondents had low or very low knowledge of digital assessment and screening (61/81, 75%) and digital treatment (58/81, 72%) for these groups. Those using digital formats for refugees and migrants, or working in a setting that did so, had significantly higher ratings on all 5 knowledge items compared to those that did not (P<.001 to P=.01). Respondents emphasized the importance of digital solutions being provided in refugees’ and migrants’ native languages (70/81, 86%) and being culturally adapted (56/81, 69%). Those using digital formats for refugees and migrants considered cultural adaptation less necessary (P=.05). The preferred implementation approach was through specialized or decentralized units in primary care (66/81, 81%).

    Conclusions: While psychologists recognize the potential of digital mental health solutions, significant barriers remain, including limited knowledge and experience with using digital formats for refugees and migrants. Psychologists prefer digital solutions in the native language of refugees and migrants that are implemented at the primary care level. The need for cultural adaptation should be further explored. Addressing psychologists’ preferences could facilitate the future integration and implementation of digital formats for refugees and migrants in routine care settings.

    JMIR Hum Factors 2026;13:e75263

    doi:10.2196/75263

    Keywords

    digital mental health; internet-based; ICBT; psychologist; stakeholder; refugee; migrant; implementation; health care; knowledge; attitudes 


    The world is experiencing an unprecedented rise in the number of forcibly displaced people. By the end of 2024, over 123 million people across the globe were displaced or stateless, having left their homes due to war and conflict, natural disasters, consequences of climate change, or political changes, including 31 million refugees [1]. Refugees often endure pre-, peri-, and postmigration challenges that increase the risk of developing mental health problems [2] and complicate integration in the new host country [3]. Research in Swedish and international contexts shows that refugees and certain migrant groups experience elevated symptoms of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress [4-6] and that these problems are also prevalent among children and adolescents [7]. Although effective treatment options exist for these conditions [8], the use of health care services among refugees and migrants differs from that of the native-born population. Refugees and migrants tend to underuse available resources and experience barriers to care due to cultural differences such as language difficulties, lack of awareness, and mental health stigma [9-12], leading to untreated mental health problems and further societal marginalization and exclusion from health care systems.

    One way of increasing the reach of mental health interventions and overcoming the lack of access and availability of mental health professionals [13] is by providing digital psychological treatment. This format of delivery has expanded considerably during the last 2 decades [14,15] and was further accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic [16,17]. Internet-based treatment and videoconferencing therapy have been found effective for common mental health problems, including social phobia, generalized anxiety, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression [18,19], yielding similar results as face-to-face treatment [20,21]. Other digital formats, such as chat, email therapy, and smartphone apps, are being provided by mental health care professionals and have shown promising results [22-25]. Also, the use of digital material together with face-to-face sessions in a blended format, a combination often preferred by providers [26], has been shown to be effective for common mental health problems [27]. Modern information technology is also used for the assessment of mental health status. Providing questionnaires and screening measures online has been shown to be equivalent to paper and pencil provision [28] and can be used to screen for refugee mental health problems [29]. Digital mental health interventions have been shown to be less effective for culturally and linguistically diverse groups such as ethnic minorities, indigenous communities, migrants, and refugees [30,31]. Few studies so far have examined digital solutions tailored to the specific needs of refugees and migrants [32-34], even though there exist specific frameworks for the cultural adaptation process [35], studies describing the adaptation process [36], and research suggesting that culturally adapting psychological treatment can increase both compliance and effect [37]. There is also a need to learn more on how digital interventions can be scaled and integrated into health care systems in different settings, including factors related to acceptability, practice, and structure [38].

    When introducing and implementing a new method, the influence of health care professionals as stakeholders is crucial and considered an important determinant in implementation frameworks [39]. As implementation is essentially a social process, the views of health care professionals also exert a strong influence on dissemination efforts [40,41] and they have been shown to be gatekeepers that strongly influence the implementation of internet-delivered treatment in routine mental health care settings [42]. Concerning mental health services, psychologists constitute an important health care profession often engaged in implementing and providing new services [43]. In Sweden, the term “Psychologist” is a protected title, and psychologists are key stakeholders, as they play an important role in the health care system, assessing and treating common mental health problems in primary care and providing interventions for more severe problems in specialized settings specifically targeting refugee health problems. The psychology profession has undergone a digital transition within the Swedish health care system in private and public settings, both before [44] and during the COVID-19 pandemic [45], with many already using digital modalities for assessment and treatment in their everyday work [15,46]. The opinions of therapists, including psychologists, in this transition have generally been positive [44,47]. However, far less is known about psychologists’ knowledge and attitudes toward the use of digital mental health solutions for refugees and migrants. Sweden experienced a significant increase in the number of refugees and asylum seekers during the 2010s, peaking in 2015, primarily from Arabic-, Farsi-, and Dari-speaking countries such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan [48], Today, Arabic is the second most commonly spoken language in Sweden [49], and migrants and refugees with insufficient Swedish proficiency often cannot access mental health treatment without interpreter support or the use of translated material. Therefore, there is a specific need to learn more about psychologists’ perspectives of providing digital interventions for refugees and migrants not fluent in the Swedish language.

    The objective of the survey was to explore psychologists’ use, knowledge, and attitudes toward digital solutions for the assessment and treatment of common mental health problems in refugees and migrants with limited proficiency in Swedish.


    Study Context

    The survey was conducted as part of the “SAHA” (“health” in Arabic) project, an academic collaboration aimed at developing and evaluating digital assessments and interventions for refugees and migrants speaking Arabic, Dari, or Farsi [50].

    Study Procedure and Participants

    The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) was used to guide the reporting of the survey [51]. A filled-out version of the checklist can be found in Multimedia Appendix 1. An online self-report survey was distributed between December 2023 and February 2024. A convenience sampling method was used to collect the data. Survey respondents were licensed psychologists working mainly in private, public, or nongovernmental settings in Sweden. The survey intentionally targeted both psychologists working with refugees and migrants and those without such experience but working with interventions for common mental health problems to explore potential differences in responses based on workplace and experience with the target groups. Study information and an invitation to participate in the survey were distributed using a variety of digital channels of communication available for the research group. This included emails to selected individual representatives from a private psychology consultant company, a private health care provider, 7 public health care settings, 2 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and 2 professional interest groups for psychologists. Selected representatives received information about the study to distribute within their organizations. Recruitment also included distributing information about the study through mailing lists for employees at 2 public research and clinical centers, one mailing list for cognitive behavioral therapy therapists, and social media posts in 6 closed professional Facebook (Meta Platforms) groups for psychologists (≈200-10,000 members). Data on actual reach through these different distribution channels are not available. Posts and emails described the study as a survey for psychologists about their perspectives on using digital solutions for mental health problems in refugees and migrants and included a link to the online survey. Reminders were sent once or twice through the above-mentioned distribution channels. Invitations included a brief description of the study, the intended respondents, and a link to the survey (see Multimedia Appendix 2).

    Survey Development

    The authors KV and AG developed the initial version of the survey, drawing on a previous study by the research group at Linköping University that examined knowledge, attitudes, acceptability, and near-future expectations regarding digital treatment formats for depression [26]. Questions considering the provision of care were added to further address implementation perspectives. The new survey was reviewed by all researchers within the SAHA project who had expertise in digital assessment and treatment, refugee and migrant groups, and cultural adaptations. Based on the team review, changes were made concerning terminology, comprehensibility, the inclusion of topics related to the research project, themes regarding refugees and digital mental health, and alignment with overarching analytic entities such as knowledge and attitudes. A beta version of the survey was distributed again to the SAHA research group, as well as 3 psychologists representing the public, private, and nongovernmental (NGO) sectors, to test for contextual fit. Based on this feedback, the survey was again modified, including adjustments of important terminology, grammatical errors, and clarification of how questions were related to the purpose of the study, until a final version of the survey named SAHA-Stakeholder was decided upon. The terms “migrant” and “refugee” were defined at the beginning of the survey for respondents and were used consistently throughout. As phrased, these terms included individuals with no or limited proficiency in Swedish and did not specify current residence status (eg, individuals with no residence permit, asylum seekers, or holders of temporary or permanent permits).

    The final version of the survey included 26 closed questions and 5 open-ended free text questions. It was distributed through the Iterapi platform (Linköping University, Sweden), a secure and widely used solution for providing online surveys, questionnaires, and internet-based interventions [52], and took approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. Two of the open-ended questions, addressing specific barriers and facilitators to implementation, were analyzed separately using conventional content analysis and will be reported in a separate manuscript. Closed questions were conveyed as binary questions (yes or no), nominal scale alternatives (eg, children, youth and adolescents, adults, and older adults), or multiple-choice selections. All knowledge questions used 5-point Likert scale answers, ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). Three of the closed questions included an option for the respondent to provide a free-text answer if the available answers did not apply to the respondent. Data on ethnicity were not collected due to restrictions on this type of data collection in Sweden. The survey was developed and distributed in Swedish. For a translated English version of the survey and a detailed description of the Iterapi platform, see Multimedia Appendices 3 and 4.

    Data Analysis

    All quantitative data were processed and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical procedures in IBM SPSS Statistics (version 29.0; IBM Corp). All inferential statistics were considered exploratory due to the limited sample size and the absence of an a priori power analysis. Responses to the survey questions on respondent characteristics from the survey questions (items 1-8, 12, and 13) were recoded into binary variables to ensure adequate cell sizes in correlational analyses and t tests, thereby supporting valid statistical comparisons and improving the interpretability of results. Details of the recategorization are provided in Multimedia Appendix 5.

    Due to the low expected frequencies in some cells, Fisher exact test was used as an alternative to the chi-square test for analyzing nominal and ordinal data. Moreover, adjusted standardized residuals were examined to assess the impact of each cell in analyses exceeding the 2x2 table format, with a value of 1.96 indicating significant deviations from expected frequencies. Since this analysis provides descriptive indicators of cell contributions rather than effect size measures, and most tables exceeded the 2x2 format, odds ratios and confidence intervals were not calculated.

    Two-tailed t tests were used to analyze Likert-scale responses to the 5 knowledge questions and compare groups using the binary categories. The data were treated as continuous variables, in line with the common use of parametric tests for Likert-type scales in social science research [53-55]. The Shapiro-Wilk test results indicated that the data were not normally distributed. However, t tests are generally considered robust to such violations, based on the central limit theorem, when sample sizes are well above 30, such as in this study. To assess the robustness of the findings given these deviations, a nonparametric alternative—the Mann-Whitney U test—was conducted as a sensitivity analysis. The results were consistent with those of the independent samples t test, with one exception. Free-text responses from the 3 open-ended questions on currently used digital tools, preferred digital tools, and gatekeepers, as well as from the 3 “Other” response options, were grouped into categories but not formally analyzed. They are included in the discussion section only to provide contextual understanding.

    Ethical Considerations

    Ethical approval was obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2022-04274-02). All participants provided informed consent digitally before accessing the survey. Participation was voluntary, and respondents could not proceed to the questionnaire without providing consent (see Multimedia Appendix 6). Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, their right to withdraw at any time prior to submission, and how their data would be used. Data were collected anonymously through the online survey platform and stored securely in accordance with applicable data protection regulations. Only the research team had access to the data. The results are reported in aggregate form to prevent identification of individual participants. No financial or other incentives were provided for participation.


    Sample Characteristics

    The study website received 501 unique visitors, of whom 122 provided informed consent. Among these, 111 respondents started the survey, and 81 (73%) completed it. Only completers were included in the analysis. Sample characteristics of the respondents can be found in Table 1. The most common free-text answer in the “Other” category for “Level of care” was working in a private practice (n=3), while 10 respondents did not provide an explanation.

    Table 1. Sample characteristics of the respondents (N=81). Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
    CharacteristicsValues, n (%)
    Age (years)

    		25-3423 (28)

    		35-4430 (37)

    		45-5415 (18)

    		55-6410 (12)

    		≥653 (4)
    Gender

    		Women58 (72)

    		Men19 (23)

    		Nonbinary1 (1)

    		Unsure1 (1)

    		Prefer not to answer2 (2)
    Organization

    		Health care region40 (49)

    		Municipality3 (4)

    		Government7 (9)

    		Private19 (23)

    		Sole proprietorship1 (1)

    		Nonprofit or NGOa8 (10)

    		Other3 (4)
    Level of care

    		Primary care21 (26)

    		Specialized care32 (40)

    		Other19 (23)

    		Not applicable9 (11)
    Targeted age group (years)

    		Children (0-15)14 (17)

    		Adolescents or young adults (16-25)10 (12)

    		Adults (26-64)56 (69)

    		Older adults (≥65)1 (1)
    Manager position

    		Yes7 (9)

    		No74 (91)

    aNGO: nongovernmental organization.

    Experience of Refugee and Migrant Mental Health Interventions

    Of respondents, 28 out of 81 (35%) reported that they worked in a setting that provided interventions for mental health problems that were specifically targeting refugees or migrants. A large proportion of respondents, 60 out of 81 (74%), reported having experience working with Arabic-, Dari-, or Farsi-speaking refugees or migrants. Most respondents did not speak Arabic, Dari, or Farsi, apart from 3 who reported being fluent in Dari or Farsi and 2 who had a limited understanding of Arabic. In terms of first-hand personal experience working with mental health problems in refugees, respondents stated that they had experience of psychotherapeutic or psychological treatments (48/81, 59%), assessment or diagnosis (41/81, 51%), psychosocial support (30/81, 37%), referrals (20/81, 25%), prevention (8/81, 10%), and medical or pharmacological treatment (2/81, 2%). A total of 15 respondents (18%) had no firsthand experience working with refugees or migrants.

    Use of Digital Solutions for Migrants and Refugees

    Respondents reported limited availability of digital solutions at their workplace for addressing mental health problems among refugees and migrants (15/81, 19%). A large proportion of the sample responded that they were not using digital solutions for these groups, or they were using them only for other target groups (see Table 2).

    Table 2. Psychologists reported use of digital assessment and treatment for refugees and migrants with mental health problems (N=81).
    Reported use of solutions for refugees and migrantsValues, n (%)
    Assessment or screening, and treatment11 (14)
    Assessment or screening3 (4)
    Treatment2 (2)
    No, but for other target groups27 (33)
    No use of digital tools38 (47)

    Knowledge

    The knowledge of digital interventions for refugees was limited in the sample, with 75% (61/81) rating their knowledge of digital screening and assessment as low or very low, and 72% (58/81) rating their knowledge of digital treatment formats similarly (see Table 3). More than half of the respondents (42/81, 52%) stated a lack of knowledge about the organization of care for refugees and migrants.

    Explorative t tests indicated that those working in settings that provided interventions for refugees or migrants had significantly more knowledge of mental health assessment and treatment for refugees and migrants (t79=3.920; P<.001), guidelines and organization of care (t79=4.371; P<.001), and cultural considerations and adaptations (t79=2.269; P=.03). Similar results were found for those with personal experience of working with refugees or migrants (t79=3.446; P<.001; t79=3.079; P=.003; t79=2.925; P=.004) and those with specific experience of working with Dari-, Farsi-, and Arabic-speaking refugees or migrants (t79=3.892; P<.001; t79=2.189; P=.03; t79=2.722; P=.008). Respondents in workplace settings that provided interventions for refugees or migrants also had significantly higher knowledge of digital treatment formats (t79=2.978; P=.005). Those working in settings that provided digital formats for mental health problems for refugees or migrants and were themselves using digital formats for refugees or migrants had significantly higher scores on all 5 knowledge questions (t79=2.699 to 3.717; P<.001 to P=.01). Additionally, respondents employed at a health care region rated their knowledge of guidelines and organization of care for refugees significantly lower (t79=–2.419; P=.02), and the sensitivity analysis indicated that psychologists working in specialist care settings reported greater knowledge of digital screening and assessment tools (U=228; Z=–2.113; P=.04).

    Table 3. Knowledge about the provision, organization, and cultural adaptation of mental health interventions for refugees and migrants (N=81).
    Knowledge aboutFrequencyaMean (SD)
    Assessment and/or treatment1=6; 2=20; 3=30; 4=17; 5=83.08 (1.08)
    Guidelines and organization of care for assessment and/or treatment1=24; 2=18; 3=24; 4=8; 5=72.46 (1.26)
    Digital assessment or screening tools1=41; 2=20; 3=13; 4=4; 5=31.86 (1.09)
    Digital treatment1=33; 2=25; 3=13; 4=7; 5=32.04 (1.12)
    Cultural adaptations of assessment and/or treatment1=8; 2=21; 3=29; 4=14; 5=92.94 (1.13)

    aResponses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).

    Acceptability and Cultural Adaptation

    Most respondents indicated a need to provide assessment and treatment in a digital format for refugees and migrants within the Swedish health care system (56/81, 69%). One in four selected the “Do not know” alternative (21/81, 26%). A significant proportion of respondents stated that digital solutions should be provided in the mother tongue of refugees and migrants (70/81, 86%) and that digital assessment and treatment should be culturally adapted (56/81, 69%). Those currently using, or having personal experience of, digital formats for refugees or migrants had significantly more “No” answers on the question if digital interventions should be culturally adapted than those without experience (P=.48; residual 2.3).

    The respondents considered it most acceptable to provide digital treatment for refugees and migrants in the form of guided internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT), by video, or in a blended treatment format (see Table 4). Respondents in specialist settings were significantly more positive about the use of video for refugees and migrants (P=.007) than those working in primary care, and women were more positive than men about self-help apps (P=.004).

    Table 4. In what format can digital treatment be provided for refugees and/or migrants (multiple choice; N=81).
    Digital formatYes, n (%)No, n (%)
    Guided ICBTa66 (82)15 (18)
    Unguided ICBT42 (52)39 (48)
    Blended treatment62 (77)19 (23)
    Internet-based or blended (other than CBTb)47 (58)34 (42)
    Video62 (77)19 (23)
    Self-help Apps45 (56)36 (44)
    Chat36 (44)45 (56)
    No digital treatment is suitable2 (3)79 (97)

    aICBT: internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy.

    bCBT: cognitive behavioral therapy.

    For most diagnoses and common mental health problems in refugees and migrants, a moderate level of severity was considered the highest level that could be treated using digital interventions (see Table 5). Fisher exact test showed that participants employed outside of a public health care region were more likely to report that moderate and severe depression could be treated with digital formats (P=.02). In the residual analysis, the “Moderate” response contributed 1.9, and the “Severe” response contributed 2.5. Respondents from public health care regions were more likely to report that posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment for refugees and migrants was not suitable for digital formats (P=.04), with the “Not at all” response contributing 2.8 in the residual analysis. Those working in settings that had no digital formats for refugee or migrant mental health problems considered mild PTSD to be a more suitable option for digital treatment (P=.02).

    Table 5. Highest level of severity that can be treated with digital interventions (N=81). Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
    DiagnoseNot at all, n (%)Mild, n (%)Moderate, n (%)Severe, n (%)Do not know, n (%)
    Depression2 (2)16 (20)44 (54)6 (7)13 (16)
    Social anxiety disorder2 (2)12 (15)36 (44)17 (21)14 (17)
    Panic disorder1 (1)17 (21)33 (41)15 (18)15 (18)
    Generalized anxiety disorder7 (9)21 (26)28 (35)11 (14)14 (17)
    PTSDa7 (9)21 (26)28 (35)11 (14)14 (17)
    Insomnia2 (2)10 (12)31 (38)24 (30)14 (17)
    Complicated grief3 (4)17 (21)25 (31)15 (18)21 (26)

    aPTSD: posttraumatic stress disorder.

    Preferred Provision of Care and Access to Digital Tools

    Most respondents answered “No” to the question of whether refugees and migrants receive the care they need through Sweden’s health care system (58/81, 72%). Only 4 said “Yes” (5%), and 19 (23%) chose to answer, “Do not know.” Respondents in workplace settings that provided interventions for refugees or migrants had a higher proportion indicating that refugees and migrants do not receive the mental health care they need in the current health care system (P=.04; residual=2.6). Those in settings that did not provide such interventions had a higher proportion of “Do not know” responses (P=.04; residual=2.0).

    Eighteen (22%) respondents worked in settings where digital treatment was already provided, and the other respondents were divided on whether such interventions should be implemented at their workplace (31/81, 38%) or not (32/81, 40%). Those working in settings that did not provide digital formats for refugee or migrant mental health had a significantly higher number of “Does not, but should” responses than those working in settings that did (P<.001; residual=2.2). Respondents preferred interventions for refugees and migrants to be provided through specialized units in primary care (38/81, 47%), followed by decentralized dissemination in primary care (28/81, 35%) and secondary or specialized care (6/81, 7%). Significantly more respondents working at the primary care level at the time of this writing believed that digital formats should be provided through specialist settings than those already working in such settings (P=.03; residual 2.6). In contrast, respondents working in specialist care settings were more likely to believe that dissemination should occur in nonspecialized settings in primary care compared to psychologists working there (P=.03; residual 1.9).


    Principal Findings

    In this survey, 81 psychologists working primarily in public, private, and NGO health care settings provided their perspectives on the use of digital formats for the assessment and treatment of common mental health problems in refugees and migrants. Results from the survey showed that guided ICBT, blended treatment, and videoconferencing therapy were the most accepted digital formats for treating refugee and migrant mental health problems, although respondents had limited experience and low knowledge of using these or other digital solutions for refugees and migrants. There was a strong consensus in favor of providing digital solutions in refugees’ native language. Although a majority believed that interventions should also be culturally adapted for better fit, explorative analyses showed that those currently working with digital formats for refugees or migrants considered cultural adaptations to be less necessary. Psychologists preferred digital solutions to be delivered at the primary care level, either through centralized units or a decentralized approach.

    Role of Knowledge and Personal Experience

    The lack of knowledge and use of digital formats for refugees and migrants among respondents highlights the current landscape in digital mental health, where interventions and assessment procedures are mainly targeting (and being created for) Western, native-speaking populations [56]. This lack of personal experience and knowledge among psychologists could act as a barrier to the use of digital formats, as seen in other studies [57].

    Since increasing knowledge about digital solutions has been shown to increase perceived advantages and reduce perceived disadvantages of digital mental health interventions [58], awareness- and knowledge-raising activities for psychologists could serve as an important first step in health care settings where implementation of digital formats is being discussed or planned. The use of digital formats among psychologists in Sweden may facilitate the transition to similar alternatives for refugees and migrants, as therapists’ experience in delivering online mental health interventions during COVID-19 was associated with higher acceptance of these formats [59]. For those not using digital formats at the time of this writing, there is a need to examine how such a transition is perceived [44], recognizing that those transitioning may perceive both negative and mixed views on using new technologies for the provision of care [60].

    Positive Attitudes and Preferred Digital Solutions

    The preference for ICBT, videoconferencing, and blended treatment among respondents may not be surprising, as these are the most commonly used digital delivery formats in the Swedish health care system by psychologists and have been widely studied by researchers [19,27,61]. An interesting finding was that guided ICBT received more positive ratings than blended treatment, which contrasts with earlier surveys showing the opposite [26,57,62]. This could be due to the fact that ICBT programs have been available for 8 years through the public national online platform for internet-delivered treatment and support [63] and are frequently delivered by psychologists. Additionally, it may be preferred because it can facilitate the provision of evidence-based treatment in Arabic, Dari, or Farsi, without requiring the psychologist to be fluent in these languages, thus overcoming the barrier of using an interpreter [64]. The positive attitudes toward the use of video in specialist settings may be explained by the fact that it was the preferred digital solution in the transition to digital formats in psychiatric care during the COVID-19 pandemic [45]. Another perspective is that videoconferencing therapy has been used for diagnoses often treated in specialist settings (eg, PTSD) and can be perceived as more easily adapted for more severe conditions than other digital formats [21]. This and the generally positive attitudes toward digital interventions expressed by psychologists, including the use of smartphone apps among women, could facilitate the transition to digital alternatives, as acceptability has an impact on implementation and scalability [65].

    Need for Translated and Culturally Adapted Solutions

    Even though most respondents had at least some experience working with refugees or migrants, including working with Arabic-, Dari-, or Farsi-speaking patients, no psychologists in this survey could speak Arabic fluently. Since Arabic is the second most widely spoken mother tongue in Sweden [49], and a significant proportion of refugees originate in countries where Arabic, Dari, or Farsi is spoken [48], there is an obvious gap between the need for linguistically adapted solutions and the language skills of psychologists providing interventions. Increasing the workforce by employing psychologists who speak Arabic, Dari, or Farsi as their mother tongue or educating culture brokers to facilitate understanding between patients and health care providers [10] are viable options but will take time and not be sufficient. Instead, using translated assessment and treatment materials or facilitating the use of interpreters in digital formats, such as video, could swiftly increase access by adapting existing technology and content. The preference for culturally adapted digital solutions seen in this study has been confirmed by other studies, for example, in a survey of New Zealand mental health clinicians, where three-quarters expressed a need to tailor solutions for specific populations, including immigrants and refugees [62]. As existing frameworks simplify the process of cultural adaptation [35,66,67], and culturally adapted interventions have been found to lead to better outcomes [37], adapting digital interventions could increase the possibility of dissemination in routine care settings. An interesting finding in our exploratory analysis was that those already working with digital interventions for refugees or migrants considered cultural adaptations less necessary. It could be that these psychologists had prior experience with nonadapted versions being sufficient, which led them to answer “No” to the question of whether cultural adaptations were necessary. This finding can be seen in the light of a recent meta-analysis that found no added effects for culturally adapted digital interventions in low-income settings [68], making the question of cultural adaptations a complex issue that requires further examination [69].

    Appropriate Level of Severity for Digital Interventions

    Given that there are few studies on digital interventions specifically targeting refugees [70] and migrants [71,72] at the time of writing, the acceptability among respondents of digital interventions for conditions such as depression and panic disorder could be influenced by research on internet-delivered interventions in general, which supports the efficacy for mild to moderate common mental health problems [73]. An increase in digital mental health research targeting refugees and migrants could help inform key stakeholders, making their opinions more based on evidence and less dependent on personal preferences and attitudes toward digital formats. The acceptability of using digital solutions for more severe mental health problems, such as for severe levels of insomnia, social anxiety, and depression in this study, confirms findings from other surveys [26,74]. This suggests that using digital interventions for more difficult psychiatric conditions should be examined further, both from an effectiveness and provider perspective. On the other hand, respondents working in a public health care region and those working in settings where digital solutions for refugees and migrants were not available responded more cautiously about using digital formats for PTSD. Since PTSD is more common among refugees [4] and often treated in specialized settings in Sweden, the lower degree of acceptability could be attributed to it being considered a more difficult diagnosis to treat, contributing to it being viewed as unsuitable for digital formats or only preferable for milder forms of mental health problems. New innovative digital interventions for PTSD could also have the potential to increase acceptability, being more adapted to refugee needs and degree of complexity [75].

    Provision of Care and the Perceived Treatment Gap

    The already recognized gap in both high- and low-income settings between the mental health burden of refugees and migrants and their access to care [76,77] was confirmed by respondents in this survey. If digital interventions are to help close this gap, it is essential to understand how they should be provided in routine care settings [78], including through broad dissemination that extends beyond trauma-focused treatment in specialized settings [64]. An interesting finding was that respondents in specialized settings preferred implementation in primary care settings, and vice versa, which highlights the difficulty of organizing care for refugees in the existing health care systems. ICBT has been organized in both a centralized (specialized) and decentralized fashion in Sweden [15]. When comparing 2 organizational models in Swedish primary care, a decentralized and a more concentrated model, both models had specific advantages that could make them viable options also from a refugee perspective [79]. A centralized model could increase therapist and organizational competence of refugee mental health and provision of adapted digital interventions, but a decentralized model could make digital treatment more accessible to refugees as they receive their care in the same setting as others enduring mild to moderate mental health problems. When views of outpatient mental health care deliverers (psychotherapists and psychiatrists) were investigated in a large survey study in Switzerland, almost half of the respondents reported having treated refugees and asylum seekers within the last 12 months with a median waiting time of only 3 weeks [64]. This result indicates that a more decentralized model of provision, which could include digital interventions, has the possibility of increasing access to care for refugees compared to more selective and highly specialized services.

    As implementation research highlights the importance of decisions and involvement in outer and inner contexts, along with the influence of individual stakeholders, in successful implementation efforts [80], it is crucial to ensure psychologists feel involved in the setup and implementation of digital solutions. Free text responses on potential gatekeepers showed that respondents were unsure of which individuals or organizations were the most important for the facilitation of successful implementation and stated that gatekeepers were politicians and leaders in health care settings, not health care staff. This finding, along with other data from this study showing generally low knowledge about the organization of care for refugees, may also highlight a knowledge and perceived influence gap, not only in the provision of care but also in understanding the organization of care and the role of one’s own profession. One way forward could therefore be to increase the interest of professional psychology societies in helping to establish clinical guidelines and influence the organization and provision of digital mental health in health care contexts [81].

    Limitations

    The sample size was very small for a national survey and restricts the generalizability of the findings and increases the risk of overinterpretation. As such, all findings should be interpreted cautiously. Also, the use of convenience sampling may introduce self-selection bias into the sample and does not permit an accurate estimation of the number of potential respondents who received information about the survey. To contextualize the sample characteristics, we compared the demographic distribution of respondents with national data on licensed psychologists in Sweden. The sample showed a similar distribution with respect to age and gender [82,83]. However, due to the convenience-based recruitment strategy, the findings cannot be considered representative of all psychologists in Sweden. The survey may also have attracted individuals with an existing interest in digital solutions, and results could reflect a more positive view of digital interventions than what is typical among psychologists. Although the survey aimed to include clinical psychologists in health care settings, 9 (11%) respondents reported that the question about level of care (eg, primary or specialized) was not applicable to their work. These respondents may therefore not fully represent a health care context, which should be considered when interpreting the results.

    There are several commonly used terms that overlap in their definition and are closely related, such as “migrant,” “immigrant,” “refugee,” “asylum seeker,” and “forcibly displaced individuals.” The term “asylum seeker,” as well as distinctions within refugees and migrants based on residence status (no permit, temporary permit, and permanent permit), was not included in the survey. This omission may have reduced internal validity, as respondents might have answered differently had the survey differentiated between individuals in the asylum process and those with temporary or permanent residence permits, given the legal differences in access to health care and exposure to mental health stressors across these groups. Our definitions of refugees, migrants, and digital solutions were included in the introduction to the survey (see Multimedia Appendix 7) and were based on established terminology and a consensus process within the research group. We received no feedback from the participants indicating that further clarification was needed regarding the terms used in the survey.

    The inferential analyses were exploratory in nature, as no a priori power analysis was conducted, and the sample size was relatively small. To facilitate statistical analysis and increase the number of data points in each cell, survey responses were combined into binary categories. This categorization may limit the conclusions drawn from the inferential statistics used in the study. The survey included 3 open-ended questions on the used digital tools, preferred digital tools, and gatekeepers for dissemination. Responses were not subjected to formal content analysis procedures due to the design of the questions and the nature of the material provided by participants, which primarily consisted of short answers or simple descriptions.

    Future Directions

    Psychologists can strongly influence the provision of care and the implementation of new methods, including digital mental health interventions. It is therefore important to examine further how they and other mental health professionals perceive how and if digital interventions for refugees and migrants should be implemented in a health care context [42]. Understanding the perspectives of psychologists who have yet to use digital formats is vital to address potential resistance and ensure successful implementation. There is a need for further stakeholder surveys, in-depth qualitative interviews, continuous monitoring of psychologists’ knowledge and skills, and increased use of specific implementation frameworks to guide further analysis and dissemination efforts. Strategies to enhance learning and acceptance of digital formats among health care professionals are crucial, as awareness-raising activities and targeted training programs could help reduce barriers and lead to greater adoption and inclusion of marginalized groups such as refugees and migrants.

    Conclusions

    This survey represents an important first step in understanding psychologists’ perspectives on using digital mental health solutions for refugees and migrants in Sweden. While knowledge and experience were limited, attitudes were generally positive, with guided ICBT, blended treatment, and videoconferencing therapy being the most accepted formats. The emphasis on linguistic accessibility underscores the need for adapted solutions in mental health care provision for refugees and migrants. However, the need for cultural adaptation is more complex and requires further exploration. Despite limitations, such as potential self-selection bias and exploratory statistical analyses, the findings provide valuable insights that can inform future research and implementation efforts. Addressing knowledge gaps, fostering acceptance of digital solutions, and developing scalable, adapted interventions are crucial steps toward alleviating the mental health burden for refugees and migrants in Sweden and beyond.

    Acknowledgments

    All authors made substantial contributions to the study. KV and AG conceptualized and designed the study. The survey was created by KV and AG with significant input from GA, NT, and SS. All authors contributed to the acquisition of data. KV conducted the statistical analyses. KV wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all other authors contributed with crucial input on all parts of the manuscript. We want to acknowledge all the researchers in the SAHA research group for their input at various stages of the survey development, as well as the webmaster George Vlaescu for his support with the survey platform. We also extend our thanks to all the respondents who participated in the survey.

    Funding

    The study was supported by a grant from the Swedish Research Council, “Development and evaluation of internet-supported treatment for recently arrived children and adolescents with psychiatric problems.”

    Data Availability

    The datasets generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author for noncommercial purposes on reasonable request.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Filled out version of the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).

    DOCX File , 25 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    English translation of the recruitment material used to invite participants to the online survey.

    DOCX File , 15 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    English translation of full online survey.

    DOCX File , 26 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 4

    Description of the Iterapi platform used for survey administration and data collection.

    DOCX File , 25 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 5

    Full list of recategorized variables used for statistical analyses.

    DOCX File , 20 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 6

    English translation of digital informed consent form presented to participants prior to accessing the online survey.

    DOCX File , 19 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 7

    Definitions of specific terms used in the survey.

    DOCX File , 13 KB
    1. Global trends: forced displacement in 2024. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). URL: https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends-report-2024 [accessed 2025-09-30]
    2. Raftree L. Designing safe digital mental health and psycho–social support (MHPSS) for displaced and stateless adolescents. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). URL: https:/​/www.​unhcr.org/​innovation/​wp-content/​uploads/​2023/​03/​Designing-Safe-Digital-Mental-Health-and-Psychosocial-Support-Executive-Summary.​pdf [accessed 2025-10-07]
    3. Dang HH, Trinh T, Verme P. Do refugees with better mental health better integrate? Evidence from the building a new life in Australia longitudinal survey. Health Econ. 2023;32(12):2819-2835. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Tinghög P, Malm A, Arwidson C, Sigvardsdotter E, Lundin A, Saboonchi F. Prevalence of mental ill health, traumas and postmigration stress among refugees from Syria resettled in Sweden after 2011: a population-based survey. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12):e018899. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Alpak G, Unal A, Bulbul F, Sagaltici E, Bez Y, Altindag A, et al. Post-traumatic stress disorder among Syrian refugees in Turkey: a cross-sectional study. Int J Psychiat Clin. 2014;19(1):45-50. [CrossRef]
    6. Bogic M, Njoku A, Priebe S. Long-term mental health of war-refugees: a systematic literature review. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2015;15:29. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Gormez V, Kılıç HN, Orengul AC, Demir MN, Demirlikan Ş, Demirbaş S, et al. Psychopathology and associated risk factors among forcibly displaced syrian children and adolescents. J Immigr Minor Health. 2018;20(3):529-535. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Turrini G, Purgato M, Acarturk C, Anttila M, Au T, Ballette F, et al. Efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in asylum seekers and refugees: systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2019;28(4):376-388. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Derr AS. Mental health service use among immigrants in the united states: a systematic review. Psychiatr Serv. 2016;67(3):265-274. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Kirmayer LJ, Narasiah L, Munoz M, Rashid M, Ryder AG, Guzder J, et al. Common mental health problems in immigrants and refugees: general approach in primary care. Can Med Assoc J. 2011;183(12):E959-E967. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Satinsky E, Fuhr DC, Woodward A, Sondorp E, Roberts B. Mental health care utilisation and access among refugees and asylum seekers in Europe: a systematic review. Health Policy. 2019;123(9):851-863. [CrossRef]
    12. Kiselev N, Pfaltz M, Haas F, Schick M, Kappen M, Sijbrandij M, et al. Structural and socio-cultural barriers to accessing mental healthcare among syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Switzerland. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2020;11(1):1717825. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Sijbrandij M, Acarturk C, Bird M, Bryant RA, Burchert S, Carswell K, et al. Strengthening mental health care systems for Syrian refugees in Europe and the middle East: integrating scalable psychological interventions in eight countries. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2017;8(sup2):1388102. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Zale A, Lasecke M, Baeza-Hernandez K, Testerman A, Aghakhani S, Muñoz RF, et al. Technology and psychotherapeutic interventions: bibliometric analysis of the past four decades. Internet Interv. 2021;25:100425. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Vernmark K, Buhrman M, Carlbring P, Hedman-Lagerlöf E, Kaldo V, Andersson G. From research to routine care: a historical review of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for adult mental health problems in Sweden. Digit Health. 2024;10:20552076241287059. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Ellis LA, Meulenbroeks I, Churruca K, Pomare C, Hatem S, Harrison R, et al. The application of e-Mental health in response to COVID-19: scoping review and bibliometric analysis. JMIR Ment Health. 2021;8(12):e32948. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. De Witte NAJ, Carlbring P, Etzelmueller A, Nordgreen T, Karekla M, Haddouk L, et al. Online consultations in mental healthcare during the COVID-19 outbreak: an international survey study on professionals' motivations and perceived barriers. Internet Interv. 2021;25:100405. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Andersson G, Carlbring P, Titov N, Lindefors N. Internet interventions for adults with anxiety and mood disorders: a narrative umbrella review of recent meta-analyses. Can J Psychiatry. 2019;64(7):465-470. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Thomas N, McDonald C, de Boer K, Brand RM, Nedeljkovic M, Seabrook L. Review of the current empirical literature on using videoconferencing to deliver individual psychotherapies to adults with mental health problems. Psychol Psychother. 2021;94(3):854-883. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Hedman-Lagerlöf E, Carlbring P, Svärdman F, Riper H, Cuijpers P, Andersson G. Therapist-supported Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy yields similar effects as face-to-face therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. World Psychiatry. 2023;22(2):305-314. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Fernandez E, Woldgabreal Y, Day A, Pham T, Gleich B, Aboujaoude E. Live psychotherapy by video versus in-person: a meta-analysis of efficacy and its relationship to types and targets of treatment. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2021;28(6):1535-1549. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Vernmark K, Lenndin J, Bjärehed J, Carlsson M, Karlsson J, Oberg J, et al. Internet administered guided self-help versus individualized e-mail therapy: a randomized trial of two versions of CBT for major depression. Behav Res Ther. 2010;48(5):368-376. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Nunes-Zlotkowski KF, Shepherd HL, Beatty L, Butow P, Shaw JM. Blended psychological therapy for the treatment of psychological disorders in adult patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Interact J Med Res. 2024;13:e49660. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Topooco N, Berg M, Johansson S, Liljethörn L, Radvogin E, Vlaescu G, et al. Chat- and internet-based cognitive-behavioural therapy in treatment of adolescent depression: randomised controlled trial. BJPsych Open. 2018;4(4):199-207. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Weisel KK, Fuhrmann LM, Berking M, Baumeister H, Cuijpers P, Ebert DD. Standalone smartphone apps for mental health-a systematic review and meta-analysis. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2(1):118. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Topooco N, Riper H, Araya R, Berking M, Brunn M, Chevreul K, et al. E-COMPARED consortium. Attitudes towards digital treatment for depression: a European stakeholder survey. Internet Interv. 2017;8:1-9. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Erbe D, Eichert HC, Riper H, Ebert DD. Blending face-to-face and internet-based interventions for the treatment of mental disorders in adults: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(9):e306. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Austin DW, Carlbring P, Richards JC, Andersson G. Internet administration of three commonly used questionnaires in panic research: equivalence to paper administration in Australian and Swedish samples of people with panic disorder. Int J Test. 2006;6(1):25-39. [CrossRef]
    29. Meurling J, Rondung E, Leiler A, Wasteson E, Andersson G, Richards D, et al. An online tiered screening procedure to identify mental health problems among refugees. BMC Psychiatry. 2023;23(1):7. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Karyotaki E, Ebert DD, Donkin L, Riper H, Twisk J, Burger S, et al. Do guided internet-based interventions result in clinically relevant changes for patients with depression? An individual participant data meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2018;63:80-92. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Whitehead L, Talevski J, Fatehi F, Beauchamp A. Barriers to and facilitators of digital health among culturally and linguistically diverse populations: qualitative systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e42719. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Cuijpers P, Heim E, Ramia JA, Burchert S, Carswell K, Cornelisz I, et al. Effects of a WHO-guided digital health intervention for depression in Syrian refugees in Lebanon: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2022;19(6):e1004025. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Demetry Y, Wasteson E, Lindegaard T, Abuleil A, Geranmayeh A, Andersson G, et al. Individually tailored and culturally adapted internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for Arabic-speaking youths with mental health problems in Sweden: qualitative feasibility study. JMIR Form Res. 2023;7:e46253. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Lindegaard T, Wasteson E, Demetry Y, Andersson G, Richards D, Shahnavaz S. Investigating the potential of a novel internet-based cognitive behavioural intervention for Dari and Farsi speaking refugee youth: a feasibility study. Internet Interv. 2022;28:100533. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Heim E, Kohrt BA. Cultural adaptation of scalable psychological interventions: a new conceptual framework. Clin Psychol Eur. 2019;1(4):1-12. [CrossRef]
    36. Nygren T, Berg M, Sarkohi A, Andersson G. Development of an internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy self-help program for Arabic-speaking immigrants: mixed-methods study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018;7(12):e11872. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Hall GCN, Ibaraki AY, Huang ER, Marti CN, Stice E. A meta-analysis of cultural adaptations of psychological interventions. Behav Ther. 2016;47(6):993-1014. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Woodward A, Burchert S, Barry AS, Broerse JE, Sondorp E, Bold A, et al. Scalability of digital psychological innovations for refugees: a comparative analysis in Egypt, Germany, and Sweden. SSM Ment Health. 2023;4:100231. [CrossRef]
    39. Nilsen P. Overview of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science. In: Handbook on Implementation Science. Massachusetts. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2020:8-31.
    40. Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Lowery JC. The consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). In: Handbook on Implementation Science. Massachusetts. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2020:88-113.
    41. Rogers EM. Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addict Behav. 2002;27(6):989-993. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Davies F, Shepherd HL, Beatty L, Clark B, Butow P, Shaw J. Implementing web-based therapy in routine mental health care: systematic review of health professionals' perspectives. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(7):e17362. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Graham AK, Lattie EG, Powell BJ, Lyon AR, Smith JD, Schueller SM, et al. Implementation strategies for digital mental health interventions in health care settings. Am Psychol. 2020;75(8):1080-1092. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Weineland S, Ribbegårdh R, Kivi M, Bygdell A, Larsson A, Vernmark K, et al. Transitioning from face-to-face treatment to iCBT for youths in primary care - therapists' attitudes and experiences. Internet Interv. 2020;22:100356. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Erlandsson A, Forsström D, Rozental A, Werbart A. Accessibility at what price? therapists’ experiences of remote psychotherapy with children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Infant Child Adolesc Psychotherapy. 2022;21(4):293-308. [CrossRef]
    46. Blix M, Dahlstrand A. Innovationer inom digitala tjänster för psykisk hälsa - utveckling och hinder. VINNOVA. Jun 03, 2021. URL: https://www.vinnova.se/contentassets/24ca94ab27274b94a32471db28da8ec0/bilaga-3_digitala-tjanster.pdf [accessed 2025-10-07]
    47. Kivi M, Eriksson MCM, Hange D, Petersson EL, Björkelund C, Johansson B. Experiences and attitudes of primary care therapists in the implementation and use of internet-based treatment in Swedish primary care settings. Internet Interv. 2015;2(3):248-256. [CrossRef]
    48. Asylum seekers 2002-2023. SCB. URL: https:/​/www.​scb.se/​hitta-statistik/​sverige-i-siffror/​manniskorna-i-sverige/​asylsokande-i-sverige/​#time [accessed 2024-10-09]
    49. Aharon A, Löfdahl M. Arabiska i göteborgs språkliga landskap arabic in gothenburg’s linguistic landscape. Institutet för språk och folkminnen. URL: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:sprakochfolkminnen:diva-2508 [accessed 2025-10-07]
    50. SAHA - digital interventions for mental health among refugees. Linköping University. URL: https://liu.se/en/research/saha [accessed 2025-03-25]
    51. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet e-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e34. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Vlaescu G, Alasjö A, Miloff A, Carlbring P, Andersson G. Features and functionality of the Iterapi platform for internet-based psychological treatment. Internet Interv. 2016;6:107-114. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Sullivan GM, Artino AR. Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type scales. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(4):541-542. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Winter JD, Dodou D. Five-Point likert items: t test versus Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon (Addendum added October 2012). Pract Assess Res Eval. 2010;15(11). [CrossRef]
    55. Willits F, Theodori G, Luloff A. Another Look at Likert Scales. J Rural Soc Sci. 2016;31(3):Article 6. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    56. Heim E, Mewes R, Ramia JA, Glaesmer H, Hall B, Harper Shehadeh M, et al. Reporting cultural adaptation in psychological trials – The RECAPT criteria. Clin Psychol Eur. 2021;3:1-25. [CrossRef]
    57. Mendes-Santos C, Weiderpass E, Santana R, Andersson G. Portuguese psychologists' attitudes toward internet interventions: exploratory cross-sectional study. JMIR Ment Health. 2020;7(4):e16817. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Donovan CL, Poole C, Boyes N, Redgate J, March S. Australian mental health worker attitudes towards cCBT: What is the role of knowledge? Are there differences? Can we change them? Internet Interv. 2015;2(4):372-381. [CrossRef]
    59. Aafjes-van Doorn K, Békés V, Prout TA. Grappling with our therapeutic relationship and professional self-doubt during COVID-19: will we use video therapy again? Couns Psychol Q. Jun 03, 2020;34(3-4):473-484. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    60. Ibragimov K, Palma M, Keane G, Ousley J, Crowe M, Carreño C, et al. Shifting to tele-mental health in humanitarian and crisis settings: an evaluation of médecins sans frontières experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Confl Health. 2022;16(1):6. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Andersson G, Titov N, Dear BF, Rozental A, Carlbring P. Internet-delivered psychological treatments: from innovation to implementation. World Psychiatry. 2019;18(1):20-28. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Rawnsley C, Stasiak K. Unlocking the digital toolbox — a mixed methods survey of New Zealand mental health clinicians’ knowledge, use and attitudes towards digital mental health interventions. J Technol Behav Sci. 2024;9(4):875-885. [CrossRef]
    63. Program På Stöd- Och Behandlingsplattformen (SoB). SKR. URL: https:/​/extra.​skr.se/​skr/​tjanster/​rapporterochskrifter/​publikationer/​programpastodochbehandlingsplattformensob.​76953.​html [accessed 2025-10-07]
    64. Kiselev N, Morina N, Schick M, Watzke B, Schnyder U, Pfaltz MC. Barriers to access to outpatient mental health care for refugees and asylum seekers in Switzerland: the therapist's view. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20(1):378. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Klaic M, Kapp S, Hudson P, Chapman W, Denehy L, Story D, et al. Implementability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a conceptual framework. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):10. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Cheng VWS, Piper SE, Ottavio A, Davenport TA, Hickie IB. Recommendations for designing health information technologies for mental health drawn from self-determination theory and co-design with culturally diverse populations: template analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(2):e23502. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Bernal G, Jiménez-Chafey MI, Domenech Rodríguez MM. Cultural adaptation of treatments: a resource for considering culture in evidence-based practice. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2009;40(4):361-368. [CrossRef]
    68. Karyotaki E, Miguel C, Panagiotopoulou OM, Harrer M, Seward N, Sijbrandij M, et al. Digital interventions for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Glob Ment Health (Camb). 2023;10:e68. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Blomenkamp M, Kiesel A, Baumeister H, Lehr D, Unterrainer J, Sander LB, et al. Assessing the cultural fit of a digital sleep intervention for refugees in Germany: wualitative study. JMIR Form Res. 2025;9:e65412. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Mabil-Atem JM, Gumuskaya O, Wilson RL. Digital mental health interventions for the mental health care of refugees and asylum seekers: integrative literature review. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2024;33(4):760-780. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Reich H, Zürn D, Mewes R. Engaging turkish immigrants in psychotherapy: development and proof-of-concept study of a culture-tailored, web-based intervention. Clin Psychol Eur. 2021;3(4):e5583. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Fabian KE, Foster KT, Chwastiak L, Turner M, Wagenaar BH. Adapting a transdiagnostic digital mental health intervention for use among immigrant and refugee youth in Seattle: a human-centered design approach. Transl Behav Med. 2023;13(11):867-875. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Andrews G, Basu A, Cuijpers P, Craske M, McEvoy P, English C, et al. Computer therapy for the anxiety and depression disorders is effective, acceptable and practical health care: an updated meta-analysis. J Anxiety Disord. 2018;55:70-78. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Kerst A, Zielasek J, Gaebel W. Smartphone applications for depression: a systematic literature review and a survey of health care professionals' attitudes towards their use in clinical practice. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;270(2):139-152. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Riisager LG, Larsen JE, Huniche L, Christiansen TB, Moeller SB. Collaborative development of a self-tracking assisted psychotherapy treatment concept for refugees with complex posttraumatic stress disorder: participatory action research. JMIR Form Res. 2025;9:e66663. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Alonso J, Liu Z, Evans-Lacko S, Sadikova E, Sampson N, Chatterji S, et al. Treatment gap for anxiety disorders is global: results of the world mental health surveys in 21 countries. Depress Anxiety. 2018;35(3):195-208. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Evans-Lacko S, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Al-Hamzawi A, Alonso J, Benjet C, Bruffaerts R, et al. Socio-economic variations in the mental health treatment gap for people with anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders: results from the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) surveys. Psychol Med. 2017;48(9):1560-1571. [CrossRef]
    78. Folker AP, Mathiasen K, Lauridsen SM, Stenderup E, Dozeman E, Folker MP. Implementing internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for common mental health disorders: a comparative case study of implementation challenges perceived by therapists and managers in five European internet services. Internet Interv. 2018;11:60-70. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Gervind E, Salem MB, Svanborg C, Nyström ME, Lilja JL, Kaldo V, et al. The influence of organizational models on the implementation of internet-based cognitive behavior therapy in primary care: a mixed methods study using the RE-AIM framework. Internet Interv. 2024;35:100698. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):75. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Nogueira-Leite D, Diniz JM, Cruz-Correia R. Mental health professionals' attitudes toward digital mental health apps and implications for adoption in Portugal: mixed methods study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2023;10:e45949. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    82. Resultat av tillgång och efterfrågan på de 22 legitimationsyrkena. Socialstyrelsen. Feb 28, 2022. URL: https:/​/www.​socialstyrelsen.se/​globalassets/​sharepoint-dokument/​artikelkatalog/​ovrigt/​2022-2-7759-bilaga1.​pdf [accessed 2025-10-08]
    83. Statistik om legitimerad hälso- och sjukvårdspersonal 2018 samt arbetsmarknadsstatus 2017. Socialstyrelsen. 2019. URL: https:/​/www.​socialstyrelsen.se/​statistik-och-data/​statistik/​alla-statistikamnen/​halso-och-sjukvardspersonal/​ [accessed 2025-10-15]

    ‎
    CHERRIES: Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys
    ICBT: internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy
    NGO: nongovernmental organization
    PTSD: posttraumatic stress disorder

    Edited by C Jacob; submitted 31.Mar.2025; peer-reviewed by N Kiselev, G Yilmaz; comments to author 06.Sep.2025; accepted 30.Jan.2026; published 03.Mar.2026.

    Copyright

    ©Kristofer Vernmark, Anahita Geranmayeh, Naira Topooco, Gerhard Andersson, Shervin Shahnavaz. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 03.Mar.2026.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Human Factors, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://humanfactors.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.