Effectiveness of a positive psychology and mindfulness-based app on mental health for parents of children with a neurodevelopmental disorder: study protocol of a pragmatic international randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Parents of children with a neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) experience more stress than parents of typically developing children. In a cocreation process with experts and parents, a low-threshold application that uses exercises based on the principles of positive psychology and mindfulness was developed. This application, called "Adappt," aims at enhancing the ability to adapt of the parents and caregivers of children with NDDs and at supporting their mental health. This protocol describes the evaluation study of the effectiveness of Adappt, its core working mechanisms and user experiences. METHOD: A pragmatic international multicenter randomized controlled trial will compare the effectiveness of Adappt with a (delayed) waitlist control condition. At least 212 parents or primary caregivers of children younger than 18 years diagnosed with or suspected of a NDD will be randomly assigned to the intervention or waitlist control condition. Participants are excluded if they have severe anxiety or depression levels or are in treatment for mental health issues. Measures will be collected online at baseline, post-intervention (1 month after baseline), and 4 and 7 months after baseline. The primary outcome is the improvement in generic sense of ability to adapt as measured with the Generic Sense of Ability to Adapt Scale (GSAAS; (Front Psychol 14:985408, 2023)) at 4-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are mental well-being, (parental) distress, and client satisfaction with "Adappt." DISCUSSION: Results of this study will contribute to knowledge on the effectiveness of a low-threshold application for parents of children with a NDD in multiple countries. If the application is found to be effective in improving mental health, recommendations will be made for implementation in health care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06248762) on February 8, 2024, and the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/5znqv ).

The effectiveness of personalised surveillance and aftercare in breast cancer follow-up: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer follow-up (surveillance and aftercare) varies from one-size-fits-all to more personalised approaches. A systematic review was performed to get insight in existing evidence on (cost-)effectiveness of personalised follow-up. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane were searched between 01-01-2010 and 10-10-2022 (review registered in PROSPERO:CRD42022375770). The inclusion population comprised nonmetastatic breast cancer patients ≥ 18 years, after completing curative treatment. All intervention-control studies studying personalised surveillance and/or aftercare designed for use during the entire follow-up period were included. All review processes including risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers. Characteristics of included studies were described. RESULTS: Overall, 3708 publications were identified, 64 full-text publications were read and 16 were included for data extraction. One study evaluated personalised surveillance. Various personalised aftercare interventions and outcomes were studied. Most common elements included in personalised aftercare plans were treatment summaries (75%), follow-up guidelines (56%), lists of available supportive care resources (38%) and PROs (25%). Control conditions mostly comprised usual care. Four out of seven (57%) studies reported improvements in quality of life following personalisation. Six studies (38%) found no personalisation effect, for multiple outcomes assessed (e.g. distress, satisfaction). One (6.3%) study was judged as low, four (25%) as high risk of bias and 11 (68.8%) as with concerns. CONCLUSION: The included studies varied in interventions, measurement instruments and outcomes, making it impossible to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of personalised follow-up. There is a need for a definition of both personalised surveillance and aftercare, whereafter outcomes can be measured according to uniform standards.

Evaluation of the Implementation of the Dutch Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid including Personalized Risk Estimates in the SHOUT-BC Study: A Mixed Methods Approach.

BACKGROUND: To improve Shared decision-making (SDM) regarding personalized post-treatment surveillance, the Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid (BCS-PtDA), integrating personalized risk information, was developed and implemented in eight hospitals. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to (1) assess the implementation and participation rates, (2) identify facilitators and barriers for use by health care professionals (HCPs), (3) quantify the observed level of SDM, and (4) evaluate risk communication and SDM application in consultations. METHODS: Implementation and participation rates and patients' BCS-PtDA use were calculated using hospital registry data and BCS-PtDA log data. HCPs' perspective on facilitators and barriers were collected using the MIDI framework. Observed SDM levels in consultation transcripts were quantified using the OPTION-5 scale. Thematic analysis was performed to assess consultation content. RESULTS: The average PtDA implementation and participation rates were, respectively, 26% and 61%. HCPs reported that the PtDA supported choice awareness. Reported barriers for implementation were mainly increased workload and a lack of perceived benefits. The consultation analysis (n = 64) showed patients were offered a choice, but deliberation was lacking. Risk communication was generally adequate. DISCUSSION: When the BCS-PtDA was used, patients were clearly given a choice regarding their post-treatment surveillance, but information provision and SDM application can be improved.

Assessment Tools for Measuring Health Literacy and Digital Health Literacy in a Hospital Setting: A Scoping Review.

Assessment of (digital) health literacy in the hospital can raise staff awareness and facilitate tailored communication, leading to improved health outcomes. Assessment tools should ideally address multiple domains of health literacy, fit to the complex hospital context and have a short administration time, to enable routine assessment. This review aims to create an overview of tools for measuring (digital) health literacy in hospitals. A search in Scopus, PubMed, WoS and CINAHL, following PRISMA guidelines, generated 7252 hits; 251 studies were included in which 44 assessment tools were used. Most tools (57%) were self-reported and 27% reported an administration time of <5 min. Almost all tools addressed the domain 'understanding' (98%), followed by 'access' (52%), 'apply' (50%), 'appraise' (32%), 'numeracy' (18%), and 'digital' (18%). Only four tools were frequently used: the Newest Vital Sign (NVS), the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy for Adults ((S)TOFHLA), the Brief Health Literacy Screener (BHLS), and the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). While the NVS and BHLS have a low administration time, they cover only two domains. HLQ covers the most domains: access, understanding, appraise, and apply. None of these four most frequently used tools measured digital skills. This review can guide health professionals in choosing an instrument that is feasible in their daily practice, and measures the required domains.