BackgroundThe majority of internet-based anxiety and depression intervention studies have targeted adults. An increasing number of studies of children, youth, and young adults have been conducted, but the evidence on effectiveness has not been synthesized. The objective of this research is to systematically review the most recent findings in this area and calculate overall (pooled) effect estimates of internet-based anxiety and/or depression interventions.MethodsWe searched five literature databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Google Scholar) for studies published between January 1990 and December 2012. We included studies evaluating the effectiveness of internet-based interventions for children, youth, and young adults (age <25 years) with anxiety and/or depression and their parents. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias regarding selection bias, allocation bias, confounding bias, blinding, data collection, and withdrawals/dropouts. We included studies rated as high or moderate quality according to the risk of bias assessment. We conducted meta-analyses using the random effects model. We calculated standardized mean difference and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for anxiety and depression symptom severity scores by comparing internet-based intervention vs. waitlist control and internet-based intervention vs. face-to-face intervention. We also calculated pooled remission rate ratio and 95% CI.ResultsWe included seven studies involving 569 participants aged between 7 and 25 years. Meta-analysis suggested that, compared to waitlist control, internet-based interventions were able to reduce anxiety symptom severity (standardized mean difference and 95% CI = −0.52 [−0.90, −0.14]) and increase remission rate (pooled remission rate ratio and 95% CI =3.63 [1.59, 8.27]). The effect in reducing depression symptom severity was not statistically significant (standardized mean difference and 95% CI = −0.16 [−0.44, 0.12]). We found no statistical difference in anxiety or depression symptoms between internet-based intervention and face-to-face intervention (or usual care).ConclusionsThe present analysis indicated that internet-based interventions were effective in reducing anxiety symptoms and increasing remission rate, but not effective in reducing depression symptom severity. Due to the small number of higher quality studies, more attention to this area of research is encouraged.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration: CRD42012002100

Conceptualizing mental health crisis (MHC) response as occurring within a system of services, rather than independent sectors, is critical to meeting the needs of clients. Purposefully built in mechanisms to sustain collaboration across care teams and services are required. Merging the distinct, and at times conflicting, visions of care espoused by the diverse sectors involved in MHC response requires deliberate effort.

Background: Patient flow through health services is increasingly recognized as a system issue, yet the flow literature has focused overwhelmingly on localized interventions, with limited examination of system-level causes or remedies. Research suggests that intractable flow problems may reflect a basic misalignment between service offerings and population needs, requiring fundamental system redesign. However, little is known about health systems’ approaches to population–capacity misalignment, and guidance for system redesign remains underdeveloped. Methods: This qualitative study, part of a broader investigation of patient flow in urban Western Canada, explored health-system strategies to address or prevent population–capacity misalignment. We conducted in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of managers in 10 jurisdictions across 4 provinces (N = 300), spanning all healthcare sectors and levels of management. We used the constant comparative method to develop an understanding of relevant strategies and derive principles for system design. Results: All regions showed evidence of pervasive population–capacity misalignment. The most superficial level of response – mutual accommodation (case-by-case problem solving) – was most prevalent; capacity (re)allocation occurred less frequently; population redefinition most rarely. Participants’ insights yielded a general principle: Define populations on the basis of clusters of co-occurring need. However, defining such clusters demands a difficult balance between narrowness/rigidity and breadth/flexibility. Deeper analysis suggested a further principle: Populations that can be divided into homogeneous subgroups experiencing similar needs (eg, surgical patients) are best served by narrow/ rigid models; heterogeneous populations featuring diverse constellations of need (eg, frail older adults) require broad/ flexible models. Conclusion: To remedy population–capacity misalignment, health system planners should determine whether clusters of population need are separable vs. fused, select an appropriate service model for each population, allocate sufficient capacity, and only then promote mutual accommodation to address exceptions. Overreliance on case-by-case solutions to systemic problems ensures the persistence of population–capacity misalignment.

While most health systems have implemented interventions to manage situations in which patient demand exceeds capacity, little is known about the long-term sustainability or effectiveness of such interventions. A large multi-jurisdictional study on patient flow in Western Canada provided the opportunity to explore experiences with overcapacity management strategies across 10 diverse health regions. Four categories of interventions were employed by all or most regions: overcapacity protocols, alternative locations for emergency patients, locations for discharge-ready inpatients, and meetings to guide redistribution of patients. Two mechanisms undergirded successful interventions: providing a capacity buffer and promoting action by inpatient units by increasing staff accountability and/or solidarity. Participants reported that interventions demanded significant time and resources and the ongoing active involvement of middle and senior management. Furthermore, although most participants characterized overcapacity management practices as effective, this effectiveness was almost universally experienced as temporary. Many regions described a context of chronic overcapacity, which persisted despite continued intervention. Processes designed to manage short-term surges in demand cannot rectify a long-term mismatch between capacity and demand; solutions at the level of system redesign are needed.

Units providing transitional, subacute, or restorative care represent a common intervention to facilitate patient flow and improve outcomes for lower acuity (often older) inpatients; however, little is known about Canadian health systems’ experiences with such “transition units.” This comparative case study of diverse units in four health regions (48 interviews) identified important success factors and pitfalls. A fundamental requirement for success is to clearly define the unit’s intended population and design the model around its needs. Planners must also ensure that the unit be resourced and staffed to deliver truly restorative care. Finally, streamlined processes must be developed to help patients access and move through the unit. Units that were perceived as more effective appeared to have satisfactorily addressed these population, capacity, and process issues, whereas those perceived as less effective continued to struggle with them. Findings suggest principles to support optimal design and implementation of transition units.

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

PurposeInterventions to hasten patient discharge continue to proliferate despite evidence that they may be achieving diminishing returns. To better understand what such interventions can be expected to accomplish, the authors aim to critically examine their underlying program theory.Design/methodology/approachWithin a broader study on patient flow, spanning 10 jurisdictions across Western Canada, the authors conducted in-depth interviews with 300 senior, middle and frontline managers; 174 discussed discharge initiatives. Using thematic analysis informed by a Realistic Evaluation lens, the authors identified the mechanisms by which discharge activities were believed to produce their impacts and the strategies and context factors necessary to trigger the intended mechanisms.FindingsManagers' accounts suggested a common program theory that applied to a wide variety of discharge initiatives. The chief mechanism was inculcation of a sharp focus on discharge; reinforcing mechanisms included development of shared understanding and a sense of accountability. Participants reported that these mechanisms were difficult to produce and sustain, requiring continual active management and repeated (re)introduction of interventions. This reflected a context in which providers, already overwhelmed with competing demands, were unlikely to be able (or perhaps even willing) to sustain a focus on this particular aspect of care.Originality/valueThe finding that “discharge focus” emerged as the core mechanism of discharge interventions helps to explain why such initiatives may be achieving limited benefit. There is a need for interventions that promote timely discharge without relying on this highly problematic mechanism.