1
|
Krijnen-de Bruin E, Muntingh AD, Bourguignon EM, Hoogendoorn A, Maarsingh OR, van Balkom AJ, Batelaan NM, van Straten A, van Meijel B. Usage Intensity of a Relapse Prevention Program and Its Relation to Symptom Severity in Remitted Patients With Anxiety and Depression: Pre-Post Study. JMIR Ment Health 2022; 9:e25441. [PMID: 35293876 PMCID: PMC8968549 DOI: 10.2196/25441] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2020] [Revised: 04/29/2021] [Accepted: 01/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Given that relapse is common in patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders, relapse prevention is needed in the maintenance phase. Although existing psychological relapse prevention interventions have proven to be effective, they are not explicitly based on patients' preferences. Hence, we developed a blended relapse prevention program based on patients' preferences, which was delivered in primary care practices by mental health professionals (MHPs). This program comprises contact with MHPs, completion of core and optional online modules (including a relapse prevention plan), and keeping a mood and anxiety diary in which patients can monitor their symptoms. OBJECTIVE The aims of this study were to provide insight into (1) usage intensity of the program (over time), (2) the course of symptoms during the 9 months of the study, and (3) the association between usage intensity and the course of symptoms. METHODS The Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression (GET READY) program was guided by 54 MHPs working in primary care practices. Patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including anxiety and depressive symptoms, were collected via questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 6, and 9 months. Log data were collected to assess the usage intensity of the program. RESULTS A total of 113 patients participated in the study. Twenty-seven patients (23.9%) met the criteria for the minimal usage intensity measure. The core modules were used by ≥70% of the patients, while the optional modules were used by <40% of the patients. Usage decreased quickly over time. Anxiety and depressive symptoms remained stable across the total sample; a minority of 15% (12/79) of patients experienced a relapse in their anxiety symptoms, while 10% (8/79) experienced a relapse in their depressive symptoms. Generalized estimating equations analysis indicated a significant association between more frequent face-to-face contact with the MHPs and an increase in both anxiety symptoms (β=.84, 95% CI .39-1.29) and depressive symptoms (β=1.12, 95% CI 0.45-1.79). Diary entries and the number of completed modules were not significantly associated with the course of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS Although the core modules of the GET READY program were used by most of the patients and all patients saw an MHP at least once, usage decreased quickly over time. Most patients remained stable while participating in the study. The significant association between the frequency of contact and the course of symptoms most likely indicates that those who received more support had more symptoms, and thus, it is questionable whether the support offered by the program was sufficient to prevent these patients from relapsing. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID) RR2-10.1186/s12888-019-2034-6.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esther Krijnen-de Bruin
- Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Research and Innovation, GGZ inGeest Specialized Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Health, Sports and Welfare, Research Group Mental Health Nursing, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Anna Dt Muntingh
- Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Research and Innovation, GGZ inGeest Specialized Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Evelien M Bourguignon
- Department of Research and Innovation, GGZ inGeest Specialized Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Adriaan Hoogendoorn
- Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Research and Innovation, GGZ inGeest Specialized Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Otto R Maarsingh
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Anton Jlm van Balkom
- Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Research and Innovation, GGZ inGeest Specialized Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Neeltje M Batelaan
- Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Research and Innovation, GGZ inGeest Specialized Mental Health Care, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Annemieke van Straten
- Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Berno van Meijel
- Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Department of Health, Sports and Welfare, Research Group Mental Health Nursing, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Parnassia Academy, Parnassia Psychiatric Institute, The Hague, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|