Smartphone-Based Psychotherapeutic Interventions in Blended Care of Cancer Survivors: Nested Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is related to not only physical but also mental suffering. Notably, body image disturbances are highly relevant to cancer-related changes often persisting beyond recovery from cancer. Scalable and low-barrier interventions that can be blended with face-to-face psychotherapy for cancer survivors are highly warranted. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to investigate whether smartphone-based bodily interventions are more effective to improve the mood of patients with cancer than smartphone-based fairy tale interventions (control intervention). METHODS: We recruited patients with cancer in 2 Swiss hospitals and conducted daily, fully automated smartphone-based interventions 6 times a week for 5 consecutive weeks, blended with weekly face-to-face group body psychotherapy. We applied 2 types of smartphone-based interventions using a within-subject design, randomly assigning patients daily to either bodily interventions or fairy tales. Each intervention type was presented 3 times a week. For this secondary analysis, 3-level mixed models were estimated with mood assessed by the 3 Multidimensional Mood Questionnaire subscales for good-bad mood, wakefulness, and calmness as key indicators. In addition, the effects on experience of presence, vitality, and burden assessed with visual analog scales were investigated. RESULTS: Based on the data from s=732 interventions performed by 36 participants, good-bad mood improved (ß=.27; 95% CI 0.062-0.483), and participants became calmer (ß=.98; 95% CI 0.740-1.211) following smartphone-based interventions. Wakefulness did not significantly change from pre- to postsmartphone-based intervention (ß=.17; 95% CI -0.081 to 0.412). This was true for both intervention types. There was no interaction effect of intervention type with change in good-bad mood (ß=-.01; 95% CI -0.439 to 0.417), calmness (ß=.22; 95% CI -0.228 to 0.728), or wakefulness (ß=.14; 95% CI -0.354 to 0.644). Experience of presence (ß=.34; 95% CI 0.271-0.417) and vitality (ß=.35; 95% CI 0.268-0.426) increased from pre- to postsmartphone-based intervention, while experience of burden decreased (ß=-0.40; 95% CI -0.481 to 0.311). Again, these effects were present for both intervention types. There were no significant interaction effects of intervention type with pre- to postintervention changes in experience of presence (ß=.14; 95% CI -0.104 to 0.384), experience of vitality (ß=.06; 95% CI -0.152 to 0.265), and experience of burden (ß=-.16; 95% CI -0.358 to 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that both smartphone-based audio-guided bodily interventions and fairy tales have the potential to improve the mood of cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03707548; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03707548. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s40359-019-0357-1.

COVID-19-related consultation-liaison (CL) mental health services in general hospitals: A perspective from Europe and beyond.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic posed new challenges for integrated health care worldwide. Our study aimed to describe newly implemented structures and procedures of psychosocial consultation and liaison (CL) services in Europe and beyond, and to highlight emerging needs for co-operation. METHODS: Cross-sectional online survey from June to October 2021, using a self-developed 25-item questionnaire in four language versions (English, French, Italian, German). Dissemination was via national professional societies, working groups, and heads of CL services. RESULTS: Of the participating 259 CL services from Europe, Iran, and parts of Canada, 222 reported COVID-19 related psychosocial care (COVID-psyCare) in their hospital. Among these, 86.5% indicated that specific COVID-psyCare co-operation structures had been established. 50.8% provided specific COVID-psyCare for patients, 38.2% for relatives, and 77.0% for staff. Over half of the time resources were invested for patients. About a quarter of the time was used for staff, and these interventions, typically associated with the liaison function of CL services, were reported as most useful. Concerning emerging needs, 58.1% of the CL services providing COVID-psyCare expressed wishes for mutual information exchange and support, and 64.0% suggested specific changes or improvements that they considered essential for the future. CONCLUSION: Over 80% of participating CL services established specific structures to provide COVID-psyCare for patients, their relatives, or staff. Mostly, resources were committed to patient care and specific interventions were largely implemented for staff support. Future development of COVID-psyCare warrants intensified intra- and inter-institutional exchange and co-operation.

COVID-19-Related Psychosocial Care in General Hospitals: Results of an Online Survey of Psychosomatic, Psychiatric, and Psychological Consultation and Liaison Services in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was accompanied by new challenges for psychosocial health care to enable the support of affected patients, their families, and staff in general hospitals. In this study, we aimed to describe the structures and procedures put in place by psychosomatic, psychiatric, and psychological consultation and liaison (CL) services in German, Austrian, and Swiss general hospitals, and to elucidate the emerging needs for cooperation, networking, and improvement. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between December 2020 and May 2021, using a 25-item questionnaire derived from relevant literature, professional experience, and consultation with the participating professional societies. The survey was disseminated via national professional societies, relevant working and interest groups, and heads of the above-mentioned CL services. Results: We included responses from 98 CL services in the analyses, with a total response rate of 55% of surveyed hospital CL services; 52 responses originated from Germany, 20 from Austria, and 26 from Switzerland. A total of 77 (79%) of the 98 responding CL services reported that "COVID-19-related psychosocial care" (COVID-psyCare) was provided in their hospital. Among these, 47 CL services (61%) indicated that specific cooperation structures for COVID-psyCare had been established within the hospital. A total of 26 CL services (34%) reported providing specific COVID-psyCare for patients, 19 (25%) for relatives, and 46 (60%) for staff, with 61, 12, and 27% of time resources invested for these target groups, respectively. Regarding emerging needs, 37 (48%) CL services expressed wishes for mutual exchange and support regarding COVID-psyCare, and 39 (51%) suggested future changes or improvements that they considered essential. Conclusion: More than three-quarters of the participating CL services provided COVID-psyCare for patients, their relatives, or staff. The high prevalence of COVID-psyCare services targeting hospital staff emphasizes the liaison function of CL services and indicates the increased psychosocial strain on health care personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future development of COVID-psyCare warrants intensified intra- and interinstitutional exchange and support. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04753242, version 11 February 2021.