Evaluation of a therapist-guided virtual psychological pain management program when provided as routine care: a prospective pragmatic cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous randomized controlled trials have evaluated the outcomes of internet-delivered psychological pain management programs (PMPs) as a way of increasing access to care for people with chronic pain. However, there are few reports of the effectiveness of these PMPs when provided as part of routine care. METHODS: The present study sought to report the clinical and demographic characteristics of users (n = 1367) and examine the effectiveness of an established internet-delivered psychological PMP program in improving several pain-related outcomes, when offered at a national digital mental health service over a 5-year period. It also sought to comprehensively explore predictors of treatment commencement, treatment completion, and clinical improvement. RESULTS: Evidence of clinical improvements (% improvement; Hedges g) were found for all outcomes, including pain interference (18.9%; 0.55), depression (26.1%; 0.50), anxiety (23.9%; 0.39), pain intensity (12.8%; 0.41), pain self-efficacy (-23.8%; -0.46) and pain-catastrophizing (26.3%; 0.56). A small proportion of users enrolled but did not commence treatment (13%), however high levels of treatment completion (whole treatment = 63%; majority of the treatment = 75%) and satisfaction (very satisfied = 45%; satisfied = 37%) were observed among those who commenced treatment. There were a number of demographic and clinical factors associated with commencement, completion and improvement, but no decisive or dominant predictors were observed. DISCUSSION: These findings highlight the effectiveness and acceptability of internet-delivered psychological PMPs in routine care and point to the need to consider how best to integrate these interventions into the pathways of care for people with chronic pain.

Predictors of functional impairment at assessment and functional improvement after treatment at a national digital mental health service.

Mental disorders are associated with impairment to daily functioning, which affects both the individual and society. Despite this, most research on treatment outcome only report symptom change. Self-reported days out of role (DOR) is a simple measure of functional impairment used in many population studies. The current study sought to report on the degree of functional impairment measured by DOR in a clinical sample at assessment, the factors associated with this impairment, the predictors of functional improvement after treatment and the relationship between symptomatic and functional change. Using a prospective uncontrolled observational cohort study design with a sample of 17,813 patients accessing a digital mental health service (DMHS), we examined self-reported demographic, psychosocial and clinical data. Using a series of univariate regression models and multivariate classification algorithms, we found that baseline DOR was associated with age, employment and relationship status, symptom severity, symptom chronicity and with the presence of several psychosocial difficulties. Baseline DOR was best predicted by older age, disability payments, higher symptom severity and increasing number of endorsed psychosocial difficulties (R2 = 32.7 %). Forty-one per cent of the sample experienced a >50 % or greater reduction in DOR following treatment. Those who were separated, unemployed or on disability payments, or with severe and chronic depression, experienced the greatest reductions in DOR after treatment. Changes in functioning were independent of changes in symptoms, highlighting the importance of functional impairment as a treatment outcome. This study found that many of the patients who access DMHS have significant levels of functional impairment, a large proportion obtain functional improvement after treatment, and improvement in function after treatment was independent of improvement in symptoms.

A Comparison of Self-Referral and Referral via Primary Care Providers, through Two Similar Digital Mental Health Services in Western Australia.

Digital mental health services (DMHSs) deliver mental health information, assessment, and treatment, via the internet, telephone, or other digital channels. The current study compares two DMHSs operating in Western Australia (WA)-The Practitioner Online Referral System (PORTS) and MindSpot. Both provide telephone and online psychological services at no cost to patients or referrers. However, PORTS is accessed by patients via referral from health practitioners, and is designed to reach those who are financially, geographically, or otherwise disadvantaged. In contrast, MindSpot services are available to all Australian residents and patients can self-refer. This observational study compares characteristics and treatment outcomes for patients of PORTS and MindSpot in WA. Eligible patients were people who resided in WA and registered with either clinic from January 2019 to December 2020. Results showed that PORTS patients were more likely to be older, male, and unemployed. They were less likely to report a tertiary education and were more likely to live in areas with higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage. Despite these differences, treatment outcomes were excellent for patients from both clinics. Results provide further evidence for the accessibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of DMHSs regardless of referral pathway or patient characteristics.

Antidepressant medication use by patients accessing a national digital mental health service.

BACKGROUND: Digital mental health services (DMHSs) provide psychological treatments via the internet or phone and are increasingly being offered as part of routine care. This study describes antidepressant (AD) medication use and treatment outcomes in a large sample of routine care patients accessing a DMHS. METHODS: Patients completing an assessment with an Australia-wide DMHS (MindSpot Clinic) from 1st January to 31st December 2020 (n = 17,409) were asked about psychotropic medication use. Demographic characteristics and treatment outcomes on the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD-7 (anxiety), and K-10+ (general distress) were compared for patients taking an AD versus no AD. Treatment outcomes were also analyzed for a subgroup of patients reporting recent commencement of AD medication. RESULTS: Almost one quarter of patients (4141/17409; 23.8%) reported taking an AD, mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Patients taking ADs had more severe symptoms however effect sizes were large (Cohen's d's > 1.0). Patients recently commencing ADs had the highest baseline symptoms but showed greater symptom improvement at post-treatment and 3-month follow-up. LIMITATIONS: Treatment trajectory was measured weekly using standardized scales that are sensitive to change, however they did not allow formal clinical diagnoses of depression and were subject to the effects of missing data. The observational design did not control for spontaneous recovery or for comorbid conditions that might influence recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite these limitations, online treatment provided by a DMHS as part of routine care is acceptable and effective for patients reporting concurrent AD medication use.

How well does your massive transfusion protocol perform? A scoping review of quality indicators.

BACKGROUND: Management of patients with major haemorrhage often requires urgent administration of multiple blood products, commonly termed a massive transfusion (MT). Clinical practice in these scenarios is supported in part by evidence-based MT guidelines, which typically recommend use of an MT protocol (MTP). MTPs aim to provide practical and specific interpretation of MT guidelines for local institutional use, outlining tasks and pre-configuration of blood product packs to be transfused to provide efficient and evidence-based transfusion management. Institutions can support this aim by the measurement of MTP performance and patient outcomes through collection of quality indicators (QI). Many international guidelines now recommend the routine collection of a range of QIs relating to MT/MTP; however, there is significant variation in procedures and no benchmarks or minimal evidence to guide practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to document and evaluate reported QIs for MTP. We conducted a search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for published studies from inception until May 14, 2020, that reported at least one MTP QI and use of an MTP or equivalent protocol. Included studies were evaluated using a QI classification system based on current MT QI guidelines and the Donabedian QI framework. RESULTS: We identified 107 eligible studies. Trauma patients were the most commonly evaluated group, and total blood products transfused and in-hospital mortality were the most commonly reported QIs. Reflecting the lack of international consensus and benchmarks, we found significant variability in the reporting of QIs, which often did not reflect guideline recommendations. DISCUSSION: Our review highlights the importance of establishing international consensus on prioritised QIs with quantifiable targets that are important to the process of MT.