JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

The experience sampling method (ESM) can capture patients’ experiences and symptoms in real time. These data can be used to complement retrospective assessments in mental healthcare and potentially improve treatment. While ESM is widely used in research as a measurement tool, much less is known about how it is used as part of routine care and how it is implemented in clinical settings.There is a need to provide an overview of current useof ESM in mental healthcare and the state of its implementation to inform potential uptake in routine care.

Objective:

(1) To map how ESM is currently being used in mental healthcare treatment by looking at objectives, characteristics, settings, advantages and disadvantages, and (2) to describe the current state of ESM implementation in mental healthcare, looking at frameworks and models, barriers and facilitators, strategies, and implementation outcomes.

Methods:

To provide an overview of relevant literature, a systematic scoping review was conducted on articles published until December 2025, following the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley (2005). Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify studies on ESM use and/or implementation in mental healthcare. Eligible studies either deployed ESM with patients as part of treatment or reported empirical findings on the implementation of ESM in mental healthcare. Data were extracted using a structured form and synthesized descriptively. Implementation determinants, strategies, and outcomes were additionally mapped onto established implementation science frameworks, including the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), and Proctor's implementation outcomes.

Results:

In total, 46 studies were included. Clinically, ESM was predominantly used in outpatient settings and was used in a blended way to monitor symptoms, increase self-awareness, facilitate patient-clinician communication, personalize treatment, and support safety monitoring. Reported benefits included improved treatment engagement, enhanced self-reflection, richer and more contextual insight into symptoms, and support for shared decision-making. Frequently reported disadvantages were high assessment burden, limited actionability of feedback, poor fit with individual patients or treatment processes, and technical challenges. Regarding implementation, none of the included studies explicitly applied an established implementation framework. Almost all studies were in pilot or early implementation phases. Key implementation barriers included limited adaptability and usability of ESM tools, insufficient organizational resources, poor integration into routine workflows, and unclear roles and responsibilities. Facilitators included positive attitudes, user-friendly and adaptable designs, actionable feedback, training, organizational support, and compatibility with existing care processes. Implementation efforts primarily focused on tailoring ESM to local contexts, providing education, facilitating clinical feedback, and adapting digital infrastructure. Most studies evaluated feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness, whereas sustainability, penetration, costs, and long-term organizational integration were rarely assessed.

Conclusions:

ESM shows clear clinical promise, but sustainable uptake in routine care will require lower-burden designs and actionable feedback. Its value in practice depends on making ESM clinically meaningful, feasible, and well-integrated into routine care. Moving beyond pilot phases will require more systematic and theory-informed implementation.