No abstract

Background Emerging research suggests that mobile apps can be used to effectively treat common mental illnesses like depression and anxiety. Despite promising efficacy results and ease of access to these interventions, adoption of mobile health (mHealth; mobile device–delivered) interventions for mental illness has been limited. More insight into patients’ perspectives on mHealth interventions is required to create effective implementation strategies and to adapt existing interventions to facilitate higher rates of adoption. Objective The aim of this study was to examine, from the patient perspective, current use and factors that may impact the use of mHealth interventions for mental illness. Methods This was a cross-sectional survey study of veterans who had attended an appointment at a single Veterans Health Administration facility in early 2016 that was associated with one of the following mental health concerns: unipolar depression, any anxiety disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder. We used the Veteran Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse to create subsets of eligible participants demographically stratified by gender (male or female) and minority status (white or nonwhite). From each subset, 100 participants were selected at random and mailed a paper survey with items addressing the demographics, overall health, mental health, technology ownership or use, interest in mobile app interventions for mental illness, reasons for use or nonuse, and interest in specific features of mobile apps for mental illness. Results Of the 400 potential participants, 149 (37.3%, 149/400) completed and returned a survey. Most participants (79.9%, 119/149) reported that they owned a smart device and that they use apps in general (71.1%, 106/149). Most participants (73.1%, 87/149) reported interest in using an app for mental illness, but only 10.7% (16/149) had done so. Paired samples t tests indicated that ratings of interest in using an app recommended by a clinician were significantly greater than general interest ratings and even greater when the recommending clinician was a specialty mental health provider. The most frequent concerns related to using an app for mental illness were lacking proof of efficacy (71.8%, 107/149), concerns about data privacy (59.1%, 88/149), and not knowing where to find such an app (51.0%, 76/149). Participants expressed interest in a number of app features with particularly high-interest ratings for context-sensitive apps (85.2%, 127/149), and apps focused on the following areas: increasing exercise (75.8%, 113/149), improving sleep (73.2%, 109/149), changing negative thinking (70.5%, 105/149), and increasing involvement in activities (67.1%, 100/149). Conclusions Most respondents had access to devices to use mobile apps for mental illness, already used apps for other purposes, and were interested in mobile apps for mental illness. Key factors that may improve adoption include provider endorsement, greater publicity of efficacious apps, and clear messaging about efficacy and privacy of information. Finally, multifaceted apps that address a range of concerns, from sleep to negative thought patterns, may be best received.

After years of slow and fragmented implementation of telemental health (TMH), the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated widespread adoption. With the initial state of public health emergency behind us, we are at a decision point on whether to continue with TMH or return to a largely in-person care model. In this qualitative study, we investigated clinicians' perspectives on advantages and disadvantages of TMH in outpatient mental healthcare as well as considerations for future implementation. We conducted 29 semistructured interviews with outpatient mental health providers. Data were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis methodology. Advantages included increased utilization of services, improved therapeutic processes, and improved provider wellbeing. Providers, however, also noted that TMH has some disadvantages in terms of therapeutic processes and provider wellbeing, and they reported technology issues as an additional disadvantage. Overall providers reported they can provide high quality care via TMH, but indicated some patient populations and appointment types are a better fit for in-person services. Most providers preferred a hybrid model of care moving forward with reimbursement discrepancies and out-of-state licensure restrictions as barriers. They indicated that, as TMH becomes a mainstay in psychiatric care, training and professional guidelines will be important. Continued implementation of TMH alongside in-person care is likely to offer improved access and enhanced service quality when applied to the right patient populations and appointment types. Effective implementation may require policy and systems level support on equitable reimbursement rates, out-of-state licensure restrictions and professional guidelines for delivering TMH. Impact StatementThis qualitative study evaluated mental health clinicians' attitudes toward telemental health (TMH) after a period of use necessitated by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Findings indicate that clinicians see substantial clinical advantages to continuing TMH services. Most clinicians, however, emphasized that some services should still be offered in person and infrastructure to support TMH usesuch as professional guidelines and reimbursement equity-will be essential moving forward.

Objective This study compared, in treatment and control groups, the phenomena of coaction, which is the probability that taking effective action on one behavior is related to taking effective action on a second behavior. Methods Pooled data from three randomized trials of Transtheoretical Model (TTM) tailored interventions (n=9461), completed in the U.S. in 1999, were analyzed to assess coaction in three behavior pairs (diet and sun protection, diet and smoking, and sun protection and smoking). Odds ratios (ORs) compared the likelihood of taking action on a second behavior compared to taking action on only one behavior. Results Across behavior pairs, at 12 and 24 months, the ORs for the treatment group were greater on an absolute basis than for the control group, with two being significant. The combined ORs at 12 and 24 months, respectively, were 1.63 and 1.85 for treatment and 1.20 and 1.10 for control. Conclusions The results of this study with addictive, energy balance and appearance-related behaviors were consistent with results found in three studies applying TTM tailoring to energy balance behaviors. Across studies, there was more coaction within the treatment group. Future research should identify predictors of coaction in more multiple behavior change interventions.

This study assessed the relationship between perceived family functioning and two indicators of suicidality in an adolescent sample. A total of 103 adolescents psychiatrically hospitalized for suicidal ideation and/or behavior completed a battery of self-report questionnaires assessing family functioning, negative affectivity, suicidal ideation in the past week assessed by Beck’s Scale for Suicide Ideation (BSS; Beck et al., 1979), and past suicide attempts. Participants’ primary caregivers also completed a questionnaire on family functioning. A paired samples t-test evaluated overall discrepancy between adolescent- and caregiver-reported family functioning. Linear and logistic regression models were used to evaluate the simple associations between perceived family functioning and suicidal indicators (BSS and previous attempt status), as well as the associations between perceived family functioning and suicidal indicators after controlling for negative affect. Results indicated that adolescents’ ratings of family functioning were significantly worse than caregivers’ ratings, and positively associated with BSS scores and a history of suicide attempt. When negative affect was controlled for, adolescent-reported family functioning was significantly associated with BSS, but only trended toward significance with attempt status. Findings suggest that adolescents’ perceptions of family functioning may be a key contributing factor to suicidal ideation in adolescents with psychiatric disorders.

BackgroundParticipant recruitment is an ongoing challenge in health research. Recruitment may be especially difficult for studies of access to health care because, even among those who are in care, people using services least often also may be hardest to contact and recruit. Opt-out recruitment methods (in which potential participants are given the opportunity to decline further contact about the study (opt out) following an initial mailing, and are then contacted directly if they have not opted out within a specified period) can be used for such studies. However, there is a dearth of literature on the effort needed for effective opt-out recruitment.MethodsIn this paper we describe opt-out recruitment procedures for two studies on access to health care within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. We report resource requirements for recruitment efforts (number of opt-out packets mailed and number of phone calls made). We also compare the characteristics of study participants to potential participants via t-tests, Fisher’s exact tests, and chi-squared tests.ResultsRecruitment rates for our two studies were 12 and 21%, respectively. Across multiple study sites, we had to send between 4.3 and 9.2 opt-out packets to recruit one participant. The number of phone calls required to arrive at a final status for each potentially eligible Veteran (i.e. study participation or the termination of recruitment efforts) were 2.9 and 6.1 in the two studies, respectively. Study participants differed as expected from the population of potentially eligible Veterans based on planned oversampling of certain subpopulations. The final samples of participants did not differ statistically from those who were mailed opt-out packets, with one exception: in one of our two studies, participants had higher rates of mental health service use in the past year than did those mailed opt-out packets (64 vs. 47%).ConclusionsOur results emphasize the practicality of using opt-out methods for studies of access to health care. Despite the benefits of these methods, opt-out alone may be insufficient to eliminate non-response bias on key variables. Researchers will need to balance considerations of sample representativeness and feasibility when designing studies investigating access to care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0333-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Initial acceptability and feasibility data for this intervention are promising. Its computer-based, individually tailored format is state of the art and ideal for inexpensive dissemination.

Background Acceptability of mobile phone text messaging as a means of asynchronous communication between health care systems and patients is growing. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has adopted an automated texting system (aTS) for national rollout. The aTS allows providers to develop clinical texting protocols to promote patient self-management and allows clinical teams to monitor patient progress between in-person visits. Texting-supported hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment has not been previously tested. Objective Guided by the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), we developed an aTS HCV protocol and conducted a mixed methods, hybrid type 2 effectiveness implementation study comparing two programs supporting implementation of the aTS HCV protocol for medication adherence in patients with HCV. Methods Seven VA HCV specialty clinics were randomized to usual aTS implementation versus an augmented implementation facilitation program. Implementation process measures included facilitation metrics, usability, and usefulness. Implementation outcomes included provider and patient use of the aTS HCV protocol, and effectiveness outcomes included medication adherence, health perceptions and behaviors, and sustained virologic response (SVR). Results Across the seven randomized clinics, there were 293 facilitation events using a core set of nine implementation strategies (157 events in augmented implementation facilitation, 136 events in usual implementation). Providers found the aTS appropriate with high potential for scale-up but not without difficulties in startup, patient selection and recruitment, and clinic workflow integration. Patients largely found the aTS easy to use and helpful; however, low perceived need for self-management support contributed to high declination. Reach and use was modest with 197 patients approached, 71 (36%) enrolled, 50 (25%) authenticated, and 32 (16%) using the aTS. In augmented implementation facilitation clinics, more patients actively used the aTS HCV protocol compared with usual clinic patients (20% vs 12%). Patients who texted reported lower distress about failing HCV treatment (13/15, 87%, vs 8/15, 53%; P=.05) and better adherence to HCV medication (11/15, 73%, reporting excellent adherence vs 6/15, 40%; P=.06), although SVR did not differ by group. Conclusions The aTS is a promising intervention for improving patient self-management; however, augmented approaches to implementation may be needed to support clinician buy-in and patient engagement. Considering the behavioral, social, organizational, and technical scale-up challenges that we documented, successful and sustained implementation of the aTS may require implementation strategies that operate at the clinic, provider, and patient levels. Trial Registration Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03898349; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03898349