Primary Care Peer-Supported Internet-Mediated Psychological Treatment for Adults With Anxiety Disorders: Mixed Methods Study

The Safety of Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) for common mental health conditions are effective. However, digital interventions, such as face-to-face therapies, pose risks to patients. A safe intervention is considered one in which the measured benefits outweigh the identified and mitigated risks.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to review the literature to assess how DMHIs assess safety, what risks are reported, and how they are mitigated in both the research and postmarket phases and building on existing recommendations for assessing, reporting, and mitigating safety in the DMHI and standardizing practice.

METHODS

PsycINFO, Embase, and MEDLINE databases were searched for studies that addressed the safety of DMHIs. The inclusion criteria were any study that addressed the safety of a clinical DMHI, even if not as a main outcome, in an adult population, and in English. As the outcome data were mainly qualitative in nature, a meta-analysis was not possible, and qualitative analysis was used to collate the results. Quantitative results were synthesized in the form of tables and percentages. To illustrate the use of a single common safety metric across studies, we calculated odds ratios and CIs, wherever possible.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 studies were included in this review. Although many of the included studies assessed safety by actively collecting adverse event (AE) data, over one-third (8/23, 35%) did not assess or collect any safety data. The methods and frequency of safety data collection varied widely, and very few studies have performed formal statistical analyses. The main treatment-related reported AE was symptom deterioration. The main method used to mitigate risk was exclusion of high-risk groups. A secondary web-based search found that 6 DMHIs were available for users or patients to use (postmarket phase), all of which used indications and contraindications to mitigate risk, although there was no evidence of ongoing safety review.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review show the need for a standardized classification of AEs, a standardized method for assessing AEs to statically analyze AE data, and evidence-based practices for mitigating risk in DMHIs, both in the research and postmarket phases. This review produced 7 specific, measurable, and achievable recommendations with the potential to have an immediate impact on the field, which were implemented across ongoing and future research. Improving the quality of DMHI safety data will allow meaningful assessment of the safety of DMHIs and confidence in whether the benefits of a new DMHI outweigh its risks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022333181; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=333181.

"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.

Pilot Trial of Workable: A Therapist-Supported Digital Program for Injured Workers

Workplace sickness absence is a major public health and economic problem, and common mental disorders (CMDs) such as anxiety and depression are associated with particularly high rates of long-term sickness absence. Effective return-to-work (RTW) interventions are required. This pilot study investigates the feasibility, acceptability, and potential effectiveness of a new therapist-assisted Web-based RTW intervention (Workable) for injured workers on sick leave for a psychological or physical injury. A single-group open pilot trial design was used, with assessments at pre-treatment and post-treatment. The intervention consisted of 6 weeks of online modules and 6 coaching calls from a psychologist. A total of 13 participants were recruited and 9 completed all questionnaires. Program adherence was high, with 92% of participants completing the 6-week intervention. Participants reported high levels of intervention satisfaction and ease of use. There were large and significant reductions between pre- and post-treatment on measures of depression, anxiety, stress, and workdays missed over the past four weeks, along with a significant increase in self-reported work ability. These results suggest that Workable is a feasible and acceptable intervention for injured workers, with the potential to improve mental health and RTW outcomes. A randomized controlled trial is required to determine the efficacy of the intervention.

Synthesis of the Evidence on What Works for Whom in Telemental Health: Rapid Realist Review

BACKGROUND

Telemental health (delivering mental health care via video calls, telephone calls, or SMS text messages) is becoming increasingly widespread. Telemental health appears to be useful and effective in providing care to some service users in some settings, especially during an emergency restricting face-to-face contact, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, important limitations have been reported, and telemental health implementation risks the reinforcement of pre-existing inequalities in service provision. If it is to be widely incorporated into routine care, a clear understanding is needed of when and for whom it is an acceptable and effective approach and when face-to-face care is needed.

OBJECTIVE

This rapid realist review aims to develop a theory about which telemental health approaches work (or do not work), for whom, in which contexts, and through what mechanisms.

METHODS

Rapid realist reviewing involves synthesizing relevant evidence and stakeholder expertise to allow timely development of context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations in areas where evidence is urgently needed to inform policy and practice. The CMO configurations encapsulate theories about what works for whom and by what mechanisms. Sources included eligible papers from 2 previous systematic reviews conducted by our team on telemental health; an updated search using the strategy from these reviews; a call for relevant evidence, including "gray literature," to the public and key experts; and website searches of relevant voluntary and statutory organizations. CMO configurations formulated from these sources were iteratively refined, including through discussions with an expert reference group, including researchers with relevant lived experience and frontline clinicians, and consultation with experts focused on three priority groups: children and young people, users of inpatient and crisis care services, and digitally excluded groups.

RESULTS

A total of 108 scientific and gray literature sources were included. From our initial CMO configurations, we derived 30 overarching CMO configurations within four domains: connecting effectively; flexibility and personalization; safety, privacy, and confidentiality; and therapeutic quality and relationship. Reports and stakeholder input emphasized the importance of personal choice, privacy and safety, and therapeutic relationships in telemental health care. The review also identified particular service users likely to be disadvantaged by telemental health implementation and a need to ensure that face-to-face care of equivalent timeliness remains available. Mechanisms underlying the successful and unsuccessful application of telemental health are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Service user choice, privacy and safety, the ability to connect effectively, and fostering strong therapeutic relationships need to be prioritized in delivering telemental health care. Guidelines and strategies coproduced with service users and frontline staff are needed to optimize telemental health implementation in real-world settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); CRD42021260910; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021260910.