A Methodologic Systematic Review of Mobile Health Behavior Change Randomized Trials.

CONTEXT: Mobile health helps providers offer accessible, affordable, tailored behavior change interventions. However, research assessing mobile health interventions may feature methodologic shortcomings and poor reporting. This review aims to summarize the characteristics, methods, and intervention reporting of RCTs evaluating mobile health behavior change interventions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This was a methodologic systematic review of RCTs assessing mobile health behavior change interventions published in PubMed from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2018, in journals with the upper half of Impact Factors (Clarivate Analytics). Three reviewers independently extracted sample characteristics. Primary outcomes were classified as patient-important or not using definitions from the literature. Any non-patient-important outcomes were then reclassified by a panel of 3 patients. Intervention reporting was assessed by the mobile health Evidence Reporting and Assessment checklist. Data were analyzed in December 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Most of the 231 included RCTs assessed text messaging (51%) or smartphone app (28%) interventions aiming to change nutrition and physical activity (36%) or treatment adherence (25%). Only 8% of RCTs had a patient-important primary outcome, follow-up of ≥6 months, and intent-to-treat analysis. Most primary outcomes were behavioral measures (60%). Follow-up was <3 months in 29% of RCTs. Regarding reporting, 12 of the 16 checklist items were reported in less than half of RCTs (e.g., usability/content testing, 32%; data security, 13%). CONCLUSIONS: Reports of RCTs assessing mobile health behavior change interventions lack information that would be useful for providers, including reporting of long-term intervention impact on patient-important primary outcomes and information needed for intervention replicability.

Does the U Stand for Useless? The Urine Drug Screen and Emergency Department Psychiatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral emergencies account for a significant portion of emergency department (ED) visits in the United States. Substance abuse is common in this population and may precipitate or exacerbate preexisting psychiatric illness. Contrary to ED policy guidelines, many behavior health centers (BH) require a urine drug screen (UDS) in stable patients prior to transfer. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the role of the UDS in ED length of stay (LOS), cost, and charges to patients and inpatient psychiatric care. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients transferred to an in-network BH from September 1-30, 2014. Clinical data were extracted and analyzed from our electronic medical record, including records from both the ED visit and the BH stay. RESULTS: There were 205 patient encounters identified; 89 patients had a UDS performed in the ED and 89% were obtained after the ED medical clearance. LOS were similar between the two groups, however, time to ED departure from time of medical clearance was delayed in the UDS group. BH providers mentioned UDS results < 25% of the time and no confirmatory tests were performed. There was no difference in BH LOS or discharge diagnosis of substance-abuse disorder. Patient charges for UDS over the month totaled $21,093. CONCLUSION: The UDS did not seem to have any significant effect on inpatient psychiatric care; whereas ED LOS and cost were both negatively affected. Based on these results, the UDS seems to be of little-to-no benefit in the setting of acute psychiatric illness.