Examining a Digital Health Approach for Advancing Schizophrenia Illness Self-Management and Provider Engagement: Protocol for a Feasibility Trial

App for independence: A feasibility randomized controlled trial of a digital health tool for schizophrenia spectrum disorders

BACKGROUND

Given the widespread adoption of smartphone technologies, digital health strategies to address schizophrenia spectrum disorders hold considerable promise. However, there are relatively few trials of digital health interventions for schizophrenia. The App for Independence (A4i) is a multi-function digital platform co-designed by people with schizophrenia, their families, and service providers.

HYPOTHESIS

This trial was designed to assess the feasibility of A4i.

STUDY DESIGN

The study was a single-blinded randomized trial. This trial was undertaken to generate feasibility data that might inform the design and utility of future effectiveness and implementation trials. The study took place in Toronto, Canada, with 91 participants randomized to 6 months of A4i use or treatment as usual. Feasibility metrics included recruitment, engagement and retention targets, qualitative and satisfaction data, and a secondary assessment of clinical, quality of life, and treatment adherence outcomes.

STUDY RESULTS

The COVID-19 pandemic markedly affected the recruitment of both primary participants and clinicians. Feasibility outcomes were difficult to interpret, though they presented some useful information for future trials. Engagement objectives were not achieved. However, A4i-user satisfaction ratings and qualitative feedback were positive, and technology engagement was fairly positive despite implementation challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds to emerging discourse regarding how technologies such as A4i are implemented. It suggests that digital technologies are of interest and are received positively by severe mental illness populations, though more work is needed to understand how they are implemented and the optimal methods for researching them.

Leveraging Personal Technologies in the Treatment of Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Digital mental health is a rapidly growing field with an increasing evidence base due to its potential scalability and impacts on access to mental health care. Further, within underfunded service systems, leveraging personal technologies to deliver or support specialized service delivery has garnered attention as a feasible and cost-effective means of improving access. Digital health relevance has also improved as technology ownership in individuals with schizophrenia has improved and is comparable to that of the general population. However, less digital health research has been conducted in groups with schizophrenia spectrum disorders compared to other mental health conditions, and overall feasibility, efficacy, and clinical integration remain largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to describe the available literature investigating the use of personal technologies (ie, phone, computer, tablet, and wearables) to deliver or support specialized care for schizophrenia and examine opportunities and barriers to integrating this technology into care.

METHODS

Given the size of this review, we used scoping review methods. We searched 3 major databases with search teams related to schizophrenia spectrum disorders, various personal technologies, and intervention outcomes related to recovery. We included studies from the full spectrum of methodologies, from development papers to implementation trials. Methods and reporting follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

RESULTS

This search resulted in 999 studies, which, through review by at least 2 reviewers, included 92 publications. Included studies were published from 2010 to 2023. Most studies examined multitechnology interventions (40/92, 43%) or smartphone apps (25/92, 27%), followed by SMS text messaging (16/92, 17%) and internet-based interventions (11/92, 12%). No studies used wearable technology on its own to deliver an intervention. Regarding the stage of research in the field, the largest number of publications were pilot studies (32/92, 35%), followed by randomized control trials (RCTs; 20/92, 22%), secondary analyses (16/92, 17%), RCT protocols (16/92, 17%), development papers (5/92, 5%), and nonrandomized or quasi-experimental trials (3/92, 3%). Most studies did not report on safety indices (55/92, 60%) or privacy precautions (64/92, 70%). Included studies tend to report consistent positive user feedback regarding the usability, acceptability, and satisfaction with technology; however, engagement metrics are highly variable and report mixed outcomes. Furthermore, efficacy at both the pilot and RCT levels report mixed findings on primary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the findings of this review highlight the discrepancy between the high levels of acceptability and usability of these digital interventions, mixed efficacy results, and difficulties with sustained engagement. The discussion highlights common patterns that may underscore this observation in the field; however, as this was a scoping review, a more in-depth systematic review or meta-analysis may be required to better understand the trends outlined in this review.

Perception of risk of relapse among patients with first episode and recurrent schizophrenia: a descriptive phenomenological study

BACKGROUND

Patients suffering from schizophrenia are at a higher risk of relapse. The perception of the risk of relapse in patients is critical for relapse prevention. In the field of psychiatry, the study of risk perception of relapse has been neglected.

METHODS

We carried out a qualitative study using a descriptive phenomenological approach. Data were collected at two psychiatric hospitals in China. In total, 22 patients with schizophrenia were recruited through purposive sampling. Face to face semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted. Interview recordings were transcribed by the research team, and transcripts were analysed by two independent coders with Colaizzi's descriptive analysis framework. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research checklist were used for reporting.

RESULTS

The data of first-episode patients yielded three themes: (i) lack of knowledge about disease recognition and medical treatment; (ii) overoptimistic estimation of the risk of relapse; (iii) perceived importance of treatment. For first-relapse patients : (i) initial awareness of relapse warning signs; (ii) lack of systematic and accurate assessment of disease information; (iii) the perception that drug withdrawal is related to relapse. Patients with multiple relapses: (i) susceptibility to relapse: confusion and powerlessness; (ii) the severity of relapse: suicidal thoughts and behavior; (iii) effects of perceived benefits and barriers of medication behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

In schizophrenic patients with first-episode, first-relapse, and multiple relapses, there were dynamic changes in the perception of disease relapse risk and medication behaviour. Medical workers must improve risk awareness education. They should provide patients with scientific, accurate, and timely communication channels, and dynamically assess and manage the risk of relapse in various patients.

Accessibility and availability of smartphone apps for schizophrenia

App-based interventions have the potential to enhance access to and quality of care for patients with schizophrenia. However, less is known about the current state of schizophrenia apps in research and how those translate to publicly available apps. This study, therefore, aimed to review schizophrenia apps offered on marketplaces and research literature with a focus on accessibility and availability. A search of recent reviews, gray literature, PubMed, and Google Scholar was conducted in August 2022. A search of the U.S. Apple App Store and Google Play App Store was conducted in July 2022. All eligible studies and apps were systematically screened/reviewed. The academic research search produced 264 results; 60 eligible studies were identified. 51.7% of research apps were built on psychosis-specific platforms and 48.3% of research apps were built on non-specific platforms. 83.3% of research apps offered monitoring functionalities. Only nine apps, two designed on psychosis-specific platforms and seven on non-specific platforms were easily accessible. The search of app marketplaces uncovered 537 apps; only six eligible marketplace apps were identified. 83.3% of marketplace apps only offered psychoeducation. All marketplace apps lacked frequent updates with the average time since last update 1121 days. There are few clinically relevant apps accessible to patients on the commercial marketplaces. While research efforts are expanding, many research apps are unavailable today. Better translation of apps from research to the marketplace and a focus on sustainable interventions are important targets for the field.