Access to Technology-Mediated Community Mental Health Care Among Low-Socioeconomic Status Consumers With Serious Mental Illness: Qualitative Study

Background: Access to mental health care is critical for the effective management of serious mental illness (SMI), but consumers with low socioeconomic status (SES) have lower rates of service usage and worse retention in care. Digital technologies are often lauded as a way to bridge access gaps; however, little is known about how technology-mediated care may influence care access among low-SES consumers and how consumers use technology in care access. Objective: This study aimed to examine the applicability of Levesque et al's access framework to technology-mediated care for SMI and analyze how low-SES consumers use technology to facilitate care access. Furthermore, the study assesses whether and how technologies are involved in care access at multiple points within the process of accessing care. Methods: This study used 2 qualitative methods: ethnographic observations at a mental health treatment court and interviews with low-SES consumers with SMI using community mental health care (n=14) and key informant interviews with health and service providers working with this population (n=14). Observations occurred from July 2022 through September 2023, and interviews occurred between January 2022 and May 2024. Data analysis involved both inductive and deductive coding approaches. Data from both the interviews and observations were analyzed in NVivo and further triangulated through analytic memos. Results: Levesque et al's framework required several extensions to accommodate technology-mediated care related to SMI for low-SES consumers: (1) a cyclical rather than linear trajectory; (2) simultaneous care acquisition from multiple health and service providers; (3) staying in care long-term; (4) identification of both one-time and ongoing health needs; and (5) an emergency pathway for entering care. Consumers often faced challenges related to the varied digital requirements of each provider and a dearth of integrative, patient-facing tools like portals. Within this context, some consumers use mobile apps, communication, and telehealth technologies across various care access stages. Consumers used technology by figuring out how to navigate technology-mediated care, especially by leaning on others, such as case managers, for support. These others provided consumers with temporary technologies, showed them how to use technologies, and accompanied them through the process of using technology for accessing care. Conclusions: This study highlights that accessing care is iterative and ongoing, involving multiple forms of co-occurring service provision. A theoretical contribution of this work is its extension of Levesque et al's care access framework to better reflect technology-mediated care for SMI among low-SES consumers. This work also underscores ongoing challenges for accessing technology-mediated care and the importance of human support in addressing access difficulties. Clinical implications include incorporating digital readiness assessments and providing comprehensive guidance on how consumers can effectively use technologies for care. Future work should investigate how technology-mediated care can make care access easier rather than harder.