Reconsidering the ethics of exclusion criteria in research on digital mental health interventions

A meta-analytic review of randomized clinical trials of online treatments for anxiety: Inclusion/exclusion criteria, uptake, adherence, dropout, and clinical outcomes

Over the last decade there has been rapid growth in the number of clinical trials examining internet-delivered interventions for anxiety. While there have been numerous analyses of treatment efficacy, few studies have examined treatment engagement. The current meta-analysis examined participant eligibility, uptake, adherence, and drop-out in clinical trials of internet-delivered treatments for anxiety. This meta-analysis used random effects models to obtain estimates of participant inclusion, uptake, adherence, drop-out, and within-group treatment effect size. Moderator analyses examined the effects of anxiety disorder type, treatment type, and level of clinician guidance. After screening, 140 trials with 199 treatment arms (N = 11,021) were included. An average of 46% (95% CI 42, 50) of interested people were included in the clinical trials. In the active treatment arms, 98% (95% CI 97, 99) of participants began treatment, 81% (95% CI 78, 85) of the assigned treatments were completed, 21% (95% CI 18, 23) of individuals dropped out at post-treatment based on questionnaire non-completion, and an overall within-group effect size of g = 1.03 (95% CI 0.94, 1.13) was obtained. Several moderators of interest were significant (e.g., clinical guidance, anxiety disorder type), and there was substantial heterogeneity in estimates. In conclusion, a large number of inclusion and exclusion criteria have been used in trials of internet-delivered treatments for anxiety. Once recruited into a trial, however, most people appear to begin, adhere, and complete internet-delivered treatment for anxiety. Further research exploring various eligibility criteria and their impact on engagement and efficacy is warranted.

Understanding Mental Health Professionals' Perspectives and Practices Regarding the Implementation of Digital Mental Health: Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Despite the potential of digital mental health to provide cost-effective mental health care, its adoption in clinical settings is limited, and little is known about the perspectives and practices of mental health professionals regarding its implementation or the factors influencing these perspectives and practices.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to characterize in depth the perspectives and practices of mental health professionals regarding the implementation of digital mental health and explore the factors affecting such perspectives and practices.

METHODS

A qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews with Portuguese mental health professionals (N=13)-psychologists and psychiatrists-was conducted. The transcribed interviews were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Mental health professionals deemed important or engaged in the following practices during the implementation of digital mental health: indication evaluation, therapeutic contract negotiation, digital psychological assessment, technology setup and management, and intervention delivery and follow-up. Low-threshold accessibility and professionals' perceived duty to provide support to their clients facilitated the implementation of digital mental health. Conversely, the lack of structured intervention frameworks; the unavailability of usable, validated, and affordable technology; and the absence of structured training programs inhibited digital mental health implementation by mental health professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

The publication of practice frameworks, development of evidence-based technology, and delivery of structured training seem key to expediting implementation and encouraging the sustained adoption of digital mental health by mental health professionals.

Suicide after contact with a national digital mental health service

BACKGROUND

The safety of mental health care provided remotely via the internet, in particular, the probability of suicide after contact, is not known.

METHOD

An observational cohort study of patients registered with the MindSpot Clinic an Australian national digital mental health service (DMHS), linked to the National Death Index. Measures included demographic information, the nature of contact, duration between last contact and death, scores on measures of psychological distress (K-10), depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7), and responses to questions about suicidal thoughts or plans for patients who died by suicide within two years of last contact with the service.

RESULTS

Sixty-four (0.11%) of 59,033 patients registered with the MindSpot Clinic between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2016 died from suicide within two years of last contact. The mean time between last contact and death was 344 days. Fourteen patients died within 90 days of last contact, and 4 of 285 who were urgently referred for crisis service intervention at the time of contact or soon afterwards died within 2 years. Suicidal thoughts (OR: 2.59), a suicide plan (OR: 10.8), and a score of "3" to item 9 of the PHQ9 (OR: 16.4) were significantly associated with subsequent suicide. Patients who died by suicide were more likely to be male (OR: 3.2), middle-aged (35-45; OR: 2.3), separated or divorced (OR: 3.1), unemployed (OR: 3.1) or receiving disability benefits (OR: 5.1). Enrolling in an online treatment course was associated with reduced risk (OR: 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Although DMHS provide services to patients with severe symptoms of depression, only a small proportion died by suicide, and only a small number of those referred for urgent care, which suggests that the safety protocols of the clinic are relatively effective.

A Direct-to-Public Peer Support Program (Big White Wall) Versus Web-Based Information to Aid the Self-management of Depression and Anxiety: Results and Challenges of an Automated Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Effective help for depression and anxiety reaches a small proportion of people who might benefit from it. The scale of the problem suggests the need for effective, safe web-based public health services delivered directly to the public. One model, the Big White Wall (BWW), offers peer support at low cost. As these interventions are delivered digitally, we tested whether a randomized controlled trial (RCT) intervention could also be fully delivered and evaluated digitally.

Objective

This study aims to determine the reach, feasibility, acceptability, baseline costs, and outcomes of a public health campaign for an automated RCT of the BWW, providing digital peer support and information, compared with a standard website used by the National Health Service Moodzone (MZ), to people with probable mild-to-moderate depression and anxiety disorder. The primary outcome was the change in self-rated well-being at 6 weeks, measured using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale.

Methods

An 18-month campaign was conducted across Nottinghamshire, the United Kingdom (target population 914,000) to advertise the trial directly to the public through general marketing, web-based and social media sources, health services, other public services, and third-sector groups. The population reach of this campaign was examined by the number of people accessing the study website and self-registering to the study. A pragmatic, parallel-group, single-blind RCT was then conducted using a fully automated trial website in which eligible participants were randomized to receive either 6 months of access to BWW or signposted to MZ. Those eligible for participation were aged >16 years with probable mild-to-moderate depression or anxiety disorders.

Results

Of 6483 visitors to the study website, 1510 (23.29%) were eligible. Overall, 790 of 1510 (52.32%) visitors participated. Of 790 visitors, 397 (50.3%) were randomized to BWW and 393 (49.7%) to MZ. Their mean age was 38 (SD 13.8) years, 81.0% (640/790) were female, 93.4% (738/790) were White, and 47.4% (271/572) had no contact with health services in the previous 3 months. We estimated 3-month productivity losses of £1001.01 (95% CI 868.75-1133.27; US $1380.79; 95% CI 1198.35-1563.23) per person for those employed. Only 16.6% (131/790) participants completed the primary outcome assessment. There were no differences in the primary or secondary outcomes between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Most participants reached and those eligible for this trial of digital interventions were White women not in recent contact with health services and whose productivity losses represent a significant annual societal burden. A fully automated RCT recruiting directly from the public failed to recruit and retain sufficient participants to test the clinical effectiveness of this digital intervention, primarily because it did not personally engage participants and explain how these unfamiliar interventions might benefit them.

Trial Registration

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 12673428; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12673428

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/resprot.8061