Internet- und mobilgestützte Interventionen bei psychischen Störungen: Implementierung in Deutschland aus ethischer Sicht

[Digital interventions for refugees. Challenges, opportunities, and perspectives of agency]

DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM

Refugees show a high prevalence of mental health burden. Catering to the need for mental health services is made difficult by access barriers. These barriers consist of structural factors as well as culturally different attitudes towards mental health, mental illness, and therapeutic interventions. One option to overcome these access barriers and to provide mental healthcare services in an appropriate manner is seen in digital interventions. In the form of interactive websites or smartphone apps, these interventions have proven to be effective in mental healthcare. There are also promising examples of successful use of these technologies with refugees. However, the ethical aspects of digital interventions for refugees have scarcely been studied yet.

ARGUMENTS

Aim of this paper is to tackle this research desiderate. The instrument of the ethical analysis to be conducted is the concept of agency. According to the concept of agency, persons have to be seen as actors capable of acting based on their own resources and competencies. Agency is the guiding principle here for analyzing the opportunities and risks of digital interventions for refugees. In addition, I will attempt to point out prospects for an agency-based application of digital interventions.

CONCLUSION

The ethical analysis could be used as the blueprint for developing therapeutic concepts that contribute to the improvement of mental healthcare services for refugees from an ethical perspective.

[Psychotherapy with an Autonomous Artifical Intelligence - Ethical Benefits and Challenges]

OBJECTIVE

This paper provides an overview of a range of ethical aspects involved in the use of autonomous, virtual or embodied artificial intelligence (AI) in the care of people with mental health issues.

METHODOLOGY

The overview is based on a thematic literature review. It is guided by the principles of biomedical ethics together with the concept of epistemic (in)justice.

RESULTS

In addition to a risk-benefit analysis, (digital) health literacy, equity of access, issues of under- or misuse of care, and an adaptation of informed consent need to be considered.

CONCLUSION

The ethical assessment of autonomous AI in psychotherapy remains open; too many clinical, ethical, legal, and practical questions remain to be addressed. Quality criteria for AI application as well as guidelines for its clinical use need to be developed before wider clinical implementation.

[Big Data, AI and Machine Learning for Precision Psychiatry: How are they changing the clinical practice?]

Currently, we are witnessing an increasing interest in predictive models and personalized diagnosis and treatment choice in psychiatric research. Against this background, the emerging field of Precision Psychiatry is trying to establish precise diagnostics and personalized therapy through Big Data. Electronic Health Records (EHR), smartphone-based data collection and advances in genotyping and imaging allow for a detailed clinical and neurobiological characterization of numerous patients. In order to revolutionize the treatment of psychiatric disorders, a personalization of psychiatry through machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) is needed. We must therefore establish an AI ecosystem to develop and strictly validate custom-tailored AI and ML solutions. Furthermore, personalized predictions and detailed patient information must be integrated in AI-based Clinical Decision Support systems. Only in this way can Big Data, ML and AI support the clinician most effectively and help personalize treatment in psychiatry.

[Who Benefits from the App? Internet- and Mobile-Based Interventions (IMIs) and the Tension between Autonomy and Patient Well-Being]

OBJECTIVE

The use of internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) is often considered as empowerment of patients and improvement of accessibility of mental health services. Risks for specific patient groups are seldom discussed. Aim of the study is to identify patient groups that do not benefit from IMIs given the tension between autonomy and patient well-being.

METHODS

The ethical analysis is based on available empirical evidence (randomized control trials - RCTs, reviews) as well as ethical papers. Methodological background is the tension between patient autonomy and patient well-being, which is crucial to the therapeutic alliance. On this foundation, patient groups are identified that do not benefit from IMIs in terms of empowerment or accessibility.

RESULTS

The evidence-based ethical analysis shows that patients with certain disorders or high symptom severity, patients with low level of education or a lack of technical skills, and patients with a migrant background do often not benefit from IMIs. Risks of IMIs are a lack of individualization of interventions given individual treatment needs, symptom deterioration, higher dropout-rate, and insufficient identification of emergency situations.

DISCUSSION

Overemphasizing autonomy may compromize patient well-being in certain patient groups. This may lead to a situation where those patient groups whose inclusion into mental health service should be facilitated by IMIs might not be reached. These access barriers should be considered when designing IMIs, so that multimorbid marginalized groups are not forgotten in the necessary digitalization of the health market.

CONCLUSION

The application of IMIs depends on the individual resources of the patient. Should IMIs be further implemented within the German mental healthcare system, it is imperative that the patient well-being of those patient groups that do not benefit from IMIs is guaranteed. In addition, an early focus on marginalized groups may and the implementation of low-level access to counselling and treatment may provide chances for said groups.

Ethical Issues in Online Psychotherapy: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

The provision of psychotherapy over distance using technology is a growing market reaching many patients and therefore the risks and benefits need to be known by all psychotherapists whether they themselves practice online or not. This comprehensive review of the main ethical arguments for and against different forms of online psychotherapy aims to enhance discussion of ethical issues in this growing area.

METHODS

A search of three databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science) was conducted in August 2019 using a specific search protocol yielding 249 publications.

RESULTS

Of 24 ethical arguments in favor of online psychotherapy and 32 against, the top five ethical arguments in favor of online psychotherapy were (1) increased access to psychotherapy and service availability and flexibility; (2) therapy benefits and enhanced communication; (3) advantages related to specific client characteristics (e.g. remote location); (4) convenience, satisfaction, acceptance, and increased demand; and (5) economic advantages. The top five ethical arguments against engagement in online psychotherapy were (1) privacy, confidentiality, and security issues; (2) therapist competence and need for special training; (3) communication issues specific to technology; (4) research gaps; and (5) emergency issues.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings may be of help to practitioners in deciding whether to engage in online psychotherapy, and in informing patients about risks and benefits, improving ethical guidelines, and stimulating further ethical discussion. The findings are argumentative and qualitative in nature, and further quantitative research is needed.