A self-guided and monitored digital problem-solving intervention for patients with symptoms of depression or anxiety on the waiting list for treatment in routine psychiatric care: feasibility study

A digital health intervention to support patients with chronic pain during prescription opioid tapering: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Introduction

Recent changes in opioid prescribing guidelines have led to an increasing number of patients with chronic pain being recommended to taper. However, opioid tapering can be challenging, and many patients require support.

Objectives

We evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a codesigned digital health intervention to support patients with chronic pain during voluntary prescription opioid tapering.

Methods

In a pilot randomised controlled trial, participants received a psychoeducational video and 28 days of text messages (2 SMS/day) in addition to their usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control). The feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of the intervention were evaluated. The primary outcome was opioid tapering self-efficacy. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and interference, anxiety and depression symptom severity, pain catastrophising, and pain self-efficacy.

Results

Of 28 randomised participants, 26 completed the study (13 per group). Text message delivery was high (99.2%), but fidelity of video delivery was low (57.1%). Most participants rated the messages as useful, supportive, encouraging, and engaging; 78.5% would recommend the intervention to others; and 64.2% desired a longer intervention period. Tapering self-efficacy (Cohen d = 0.74) and pain self-efficacy (d = 0.41) were higher, and pain intensity (d = 0.65) and affective interference (d = 0.45) were lower in the intervention group at week 4.

Conclusion

First evidence supports the feasibility, acceptability, and potentially efficacy of a psychoeducational video and SMS text messaging intervention to support patients with chronic pain during voluntary prescription opioid tapering. Definitive trials with longer intervention duration are warranted.

"I would not want the mechanic to direct me to an engine repair manual": a qualitative analysis of provider perspectives on low-intensity treatments for patients on waiting lists

BACKGROUND

Low-intensity treatments (LITs), such as bibliotherapy or online self-help, have the potential to reach more individuals than traditional face-to-face care by circumventing many of the common barriers to mental health treatment. Despite substantial research evidence supporting their usability and efficacy across several clinical presentations, prior work suggests that mental health providers rarely recommend LITs for patients waiting for treatment.

METHODS

The present study analyzed provider open responses to a prompt asking about perceived barriers, thoughts, and comments related to additional treatment resources for patients on treatment waiting lists. We surveyed 141 practicing mental health providers, 65 of whom responded to an open text box with additional thoughts on using LITs for patients on treatment waiting lists. Responses were qualitatively coded using a thematic coding process.

RESULTS

Qualitative outcomes yielded 11 codes: patient appropriateness, research evidence, feasibility, patient barriers, liability, patient personal contact, additional resources, positive attitudes, trust in programs, systemic problems, and downplaying distress.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest providers are predominantly concerned about the potential of suggesting a LIT that would be ultimately inappropriate for their patient due to a lack of assessment of the patient's needs. Furthermore, providers noted ambiguity around the legal and ethical liability of recommending a LIT to someone who may not yet be a patient. Guidelines and standards for recommending LITs to patients on treatment waiting lists may help address ambiguity regarding their use in routine care.

Waiting Lists for Psychotherapy and Provider Attitudes Toward Low-Intensity Treatments as Potential Interventions: Survey Study

Background

Common mental disorders, including depression and anxiety, are leading causes of disability worldwide. Digital mental health interventions, such as web-based self-help and other low-intensity treatments (LITs) that are not digital (eg, bibliotherapy), have the potential to reach many individuals by circumventing common barriers present in traditional mental health care. It is unclear how often LITs are used in clinical practice, or whether providers would be interested in their use for treatment waiting lists.

Objective

The aims of this study were to (1) describe current practices for treatment waiting lists, (2) describe providers’ attitudes toward digital and nondigital LITs for patients on a waiting list, and (3) explore providers’ willingness to use digital and nondigital LITs and their decisions to learn about them.

Methods

We surveyed 141 practicing mental health care providers (eg, therapists and psychologists) and provided an opportunity for them to learn about LITs.

Results

Most participants reported keeping a waiting list. Few participants reported currently recommending digital or nondigital LITs, though most were willing to use at least one for patients on their waiting list. Attitudes toward digital and nondigital LITs were neutral to positive. Guided digital and nondigital LITs were generally perceived to be more effective but less accessible, and unguided interventions were perceived to be less effective but more accessible. Most participants selected to access additional information on LITs, with the most popular being web-based self-help.

Conclusions

Results suggest providers are currently not recommending LITs for patients on treatment waiting lists but would be willing to recommend them. Future work should explore barriers and facilitators to implementing digital and nondigital LITs for patients on treatment waiting lists.