Effects of Preference on Outcomes of Preventive Interventions among Ethnically Diverse Adolescents At-Risk of Depression

Lau, Anna S.; Kim, Joanna J.; Nguyen, Diem Julie; Nguyen, Hannah; Kodish, Tamar; Weiss, Bahr

doi:10.1080/15374416.2019.1639514

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sensitivity analysis, removing three studies with ‘high’ risk of bias (Aljumah and Hassali 2015; Kwan, Dimidjian, and Rizvi 2010; Lau et al. 2020), showed a similar result [OR = 1.52 , 95% CI = (1.25, 1.83), p < 0.001, n = 19 studies]. Sensitivity analysis, removing four studies with SDM designs (Aljumah and Hassali 2015; Aoki et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…The 26 included studies were published between 1999 and 2022. All studies were conducted in an outpatient mental health care setting, except for one, that was conducted in the general population (Lau et al 2020). Nineteen studies focused on depression (73%), four on anxiety (15%), two on PTSD (8%) and one study focused on OCD (4%).…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The intervention group (participants receiving an intervention considering preference or choice in any way) demonstrated significantly higher treatment adherence compared with the control group (participants receiving an intervention without considering preference or choice in any way). Sensitivity analysis, removing three studies with 'high' risk of bias (Aljumah and Hassali 2015;Kwan, Dimidjian, and Rizvi 2010;Lau et al 2020), showed a similar result [OR = 1.52, 95% CI = (1.25, 1.83), p < 0.001, n = 19 studies]. Sensitivity analysis, removing four studies with SDM designs (Aljumah and Hassali 2015;Aoki et al 2019;LeBlanc et al 2015;Loh et al 2007) and only including high quality trials (DRPT and FRPT designs), showed a similar result [OR = 1.49, 95% CI = (1.22, 1.81), p < 0.001, n = 18 studies].…”

Section: Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aljumah and Hassali 2015;Lau et al 2020), showed a similar result [d = 0.06, 95% CI = (−0.03, 0.16), p = 0.21, n = 21 studies]. Sensitivity analysis, removing five studies with SDM designs(Aljumah and Hassali 2015;Aoki et al 2019;Khalifeh et al 2019;LeBlanc et al 2015;Loh et al 2007) and only including high quality trials (DRPT and FRPT designs), showed a similar result [d = 0.08, 95% CI = (−0.04, 0.19), p = 0.18, n = 18 studies].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Effects of Patient Preference on Clinical Outcome, Satisfaction and Adherence Within the Treatment of Anxiety and Depression: A Meta‐Analysis

Eigenhuis,

van Buuren,

Boeschoten

et al. 2024

Clin Psychology and Psychoth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTaking patient preference into consideration has received increased attention in the last decades. We conducted a meta‐analysis to estimate the effects of patient preference on clinical outcome, satisfaction and adherence regarding treatment of depression and anxiety.MethodsPubmed, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus were searched for (cluster) randomized controlled trials. Twenty‐six randomized controlled clinical trials were included, comprising 3670 participants, examining the effect of patient preference regarding treatment of anxiety and depression on clinical outcome, satisfaction and/or adherence.ResultsNo effect of patient preference was found on clinical outcome [d = 0.06, 95% CI = (−0.03, 0.15), p = 0.16, n = 23 studies]. A small effect of patient preference was found on treatment satisfaction [d = 0.33, 95% CI = (0.08, 0.59), p = 0.01, n = 6 studies] and on treatment adherence [OR = 1.55, 95% CI = (1.28, 1.87), p < 0.001, n = 22 studies].LimitationsPatient preference is a heterogeneous concept, future studies should strive to equalize operationalization of preference. Subgroup analyses within this study should be interpreted with caution because the amount of studies per analysed subgroup was generally low. Most studies included in this meta‐analysis focused on patients with depression. The small number of studies (n = 6) on satisfaction, prevents us from drawing firm conclusions.ConclusionsWhile this meta‐analysis did not find a positive effect of considering patient preference on clinical outcome, it was associated with slightly better treatment satisfaction and adherence. Accommodating preference of patients with anxiety and depression can improve treatment.Trial RegistrationPROSPERO: CRD42020172556

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effects of Patient Preference on Clinical Outcome, Satisfaction and Adherence Within the Treatment of Anxiety and Depression: A Meta‐Analysis

Eigenhuis,

van Buuren,

Boeschoten

et al. 2024

Clin Psychology and Psychoth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is worth noting that we did not collect formal outcome measures regarding the impact of these apps; therefore, our findings are entirely based on the youth’s subjective perspective. Research on traditional mental health services has found that youth preferences do not always align with better outcomes [ 62 ]. As such, it is possible that these apps might have meaningful impacts on wellness and clinical targets or that satisfaction and clinical outcomes are not aligned, but additional research would be needed to verify this.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Mental Health Apps for Youth: Focus Group Study With Latinx Youth

Agapie¹,

Chang²,

Patrachari³

et al. 2022

JMIR Form Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background An increasing number of mental health apps (MHapps) are being developed for youth. In addition, youth are high users of both technologies and MHapps. However, little is known about their perspectives on MHapps. MHapps might be particularly well suited to reach the youth underserved by traditional mental health resources, and incorporating their perspectives is especially critical to ensure such tools are useful to them. Objective The goal of this study was to develop and pilot a process for eliciting youth perspectives on MHapps in a structured and collaborative way. We also sought to generate learnings on the perspectives of Latinx youth on MHapps and their use in ways that might facilitate discovery, activation, or engagement in MHapps, especially in Latinx populations. Methods We created a series of focus groups consisting of 5 sessions. The groups introduced different categories of MHapps (cognitive behavioral therapy apps, mindfulness apps, and miscellaneous apps). Within each category, we selected 4 MHapps that participants chose to use for a week and provided feedback through both between-session and in-session activities. We recruited 5 youths ranging in age from 15 to 21 (mean 18, SD 2.2) years. All the participants identified as Hispanic or Latinx. After completing all 5 focus groups, the participants completed a brief questionnaire to gather their impressions of the apps they had used. Results Our focus group methodology collected detailed and diverse information about youth perspectives on MHapps. However, we did identify some aspects of our methods that were less successful at engaging the youth, such as our between-session activities. The Latinx youth in our study wanted apps that were accessible, relatable, youth centric, and simple and could be integrated with their offline lives. We also found that the mindfulness apps were viewed most favorably but that the miscellaneous and cognitive behavioral therapy apps were viewed as more impactful. Conclusions Eliciting youth feedback on MHapps is critical if these apps are going to serve a role in supporting their mental health and well-being. We refined a process for collecting feedback from the youth and identified factors that were important to a set of Latinx youth. Future work could be broader, that is, recruit larger samples of more diverse youth, or deeper, that is, collect more information from each youth around interests, needs, barriers, or facilitators or better understand the various impacts of MHapps by using qualitative and quantitative measures. Nevertheless, this study advances the formative understanding of how the youth, particularly Latinx youth, might be viewing these tools.

show abstract

A Meta-Analytic Review of Emotion Regulation Focused Psychosocial Interventions for Adolescents

Eadeh

Breaux

Nikolas

2021

Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of Preference on Outcomes of Preventive Interventions among Ethnically Diverse Adolescents At-Risk of Depression

Cited by 6 publications

References 59 publications

The Effects of Patient Preference on Clinical Outcome, Satisfaction and Adherence Within the Treatment of Anxiety and Depression: A Meta‐Analysis

The Effects of Patient Preference on Clinical Outcome, Satisfaction and Adherence Within the Treatment of Anxiety and Depression: A Meta‐Analysis

Understanding Mental Health Apps for Youth: Focus Group Study With Latinx Youth

A Meta-Analytic Review of Emotion Regulation Focused Psychosocial Interventions for Adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About