Digital apothecaries: a vision for making health care interventions accessible worldwide.

Evidence-based psychological interventions are growing in number but are not within reach of many individuals who could benefit from them. The recent revolution in digital technologies now makes it possible to reach people around the globe with digital interventions in the form of web sites, mobile applications, wearable devices, and so on. Although a plethora of digital interventions are available online few are evidence-based and individuals have little guidance to decide among the multitude of options. We propose the development of "digital apothecaries," that is, online repositories of evidence-based digital interventions. As portals to effective interventions, digital apothecaries would be useful to individuals who could access evidence-based interventions directly, to health care providers, who could identify specific digital tools to suggest to or use with their patients, and to researchers, who could study a range of tools with large samples, enabling comparative tests and evaluation of moderators of effects. We present a taxonomy of types of in-person and digital interventions ranging from traditional therapy without the use of digital tools to totally automated self-help interventions. This taxonomy highlights the potential of blending digital tools into health care systems to expand their reach. Digital apothecaries would provide access to evidence-based digital interventions (both free and paid versions), provide data on effectiveness (including effectiveness for diverse populations), and encourage the development and testing of more such tools. Other issues discussed include: criteria for inclusion of interventions into digital apothecaries; how digital tools could enhance health care for diverse populations; and cautionary notes regarding potential negative unintended consequences of the adoption of digital interventions into the health care system. In particular, we warn about the potential misuse of evidence-based digital interventions to justify reducing access to live providers. Digital apothecaries bring with them the promise of reducing health disparities by reaching large numbers of individuals across the world who need health interventions but are not currently receiving them. The health care field is encouraged to mindfully develop this promise, while being alert not to cause inadvertent harm.

Perceived social support mediates anxiety and depressive symptom changes following primary care intervention.

BACKGROUND: The current study tested whether perceived social support serves as a mediator of anxiety and depressive symptom change following evidence-based anxiety treatment in the primary care setting. Gender, age, and race were tested as moderators. METHODS: Data were obtained from 1004 adult patients (age M = 43, SD = 13; 71% female; 56% White, 20% Hispanic, 12% Black) who participated in a randomized effectiveness trial (coordinated anxiety learning and management [CALM] study) comparing evidence-based intervention (cognitive-behavioral therapy and/or psychopharmacology) to usual care in the primary care setting. Patients were assessed with a battery of questionnaires at baseline, as well as at 6, 12, and 18 months following baseline. Measures utilized in the mediation analyses included the Abbreviated Medical Outcomes (MOS) Social Support Survey, the Brief Symptom Index (BSI)-Somatic and Anxiety subscales, and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). RESULTS: There was a mediating effect over time of perceived social support on symptom change following treatment, with stronger effects for 18-month depression than anxiety. None of the mediating pathways were moderated by gender, age, or race. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived social support may be central to anxiety and depressive symptom changes over time with evidence-based intervention in the primary care setting. These findings possibly have important implications for development of anxiety interventions.

Does a quality improvement intervention for anxiety result in differential outcomes for lower-income patients?

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the effects of a collaborative care intervention for anxiety disorders in primary care on lower-income participants relative to those with higher incomes. They hypothesized that lower-income individuals would show less improvement or improve at a lower rate, given that they would experience greater economic stress over the treatment course. An alternative hypothesis was that lower-income participants would improve at a higher rate because the intervention facilitates access to evidence-based treatment, which typically is less available to persons with lower incomes. METHOD: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with lower (N=287) and higher (N=717) income were compared using t tests and chi-square tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. For the longitudinal analysis of intervention effects by income group, the outcome measures were jointly modeled at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months by study site, income, time, intervention, time and intervention, income and time, income and intervention, and time, intervention, and income. RESULTS: Although lower-income participants were more ill and had greater disability at baseline than those with higher incomes, the two income groups were similar in clinical response. The lower-income participants experienced a comparable degree of clinical improvement, despite receiving fewer treatment sessions, less relapse prevention, and less continuous care. CONCLUSIONS: These findings contribute to the ongoing discussion as to whether or not, and to what extent, quality improvement interventions work equally well across income groups or require tailoring for specific vulnerable populations.