Guidelines and recommendations about virtual mental health services from high-income countries: a rapid review.

OBJECTIVES: This study reviewed existing recommendations for virtual mental healthcare services through the quadruple aim framework to create a set of recommendations on virtual healthcare delivery to guide the development of Canadian policies on virtual mental health services. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic rapid review with qualitative content analysis of data from included manuscripts. The quadruple aim framework, consisting of improving patient experience and provider satisfaction, reducing costs and enhancing population health, was used to analyse and organise findings. METHODS: Searches were conducted using seven databases from 1 January 2010 to 22 July 2022. We used qualitative content analysis to generate themes. RESULTS: The search yielded 40 articles. Most articles (85%) discussed enhancing patient experiences, 55% addressed provider experiences and population health, and 25% focused on cost reduction. Identified themes included: screen patients for appropriateness of virtual care; obtain emergency contact details; communicate transparently with patients; improve marginalised patients' access to care; support health equity for all patients; determine the cost-effectiveness of virtual care; inform patients of insurance coverage for virtual care services; increase provider training for virtual care and set professional boundaries between providers and patients. CONCLUSIONS: This rapid review identified important considerations that can be used to advance virtual care policy to support people living with mental health conditions in a high-income country.

Primary care for individuals with serious mental illness (PriSMI): protocol for a convergent mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: People with serious mental illness (SMI) have poor health outcomes, in part because of inequitable access to quality health services. Primary care is well suited to coordinate and manage care for this population; however, providers may feel ill-equipped to do so and patients may not have the support and resources required to coordinate their care. We lack a strong understanding of prevention and management of chronic disease in primary care among people with SMI as well as the context-specific barriers that exist at the patient, provider and system levels. This mixed methods study will answer three research questions: (1) How do primary care services received by people living with SMI differ from those received by the general population? (2) What are the experiences of people with SMI in accessing and receiving chronic disease prevention and management in primary care? (3) What are the experiences of primary care providers in caring for individuals with SMI? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a concurrent mixed methods study in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada, including quantitative analyses of linked administrative data and in-depth qualitative interviews with people living with SMI and primary care providers. By comparing across two provinces, each with varying degrees of mental health service investment and different primary care models, results will shed light on individual and system-level factors that facilitate or impede quality preventive and chronic disease care for people with SMI in the primary care setting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board and partner institutions. An integrated knowledge translation approach brings together researchers, providers, policymakers, decision-makers, patient and caregiver partners and knowledge users. Working with this team, we will develop policy-relevant recommendations for improvements to primary care systems that will better support providers and reduce health inequities.

Standard set of patient-reported outcomes for personality disorder.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the article is to present standard set of outcomes for people with personality disorder (PD), in order to facilitate patient outcome measurement worldwide. METHODS: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) gathered a multidisciplinary international working group, consisting of 16 experts, including clinicians, nurses, psychologists, methodologists and patient representatives, to develop a standard set of outcome measures for people with PD. The Delphi method was used to reach consensus on the scope of the set, outcome domains, outcome measures, case-mix variables and time points for measuring outcomes in service users. For each phase, a project team prepared materials based on systematic literature reviews and consultations with experts. RESULTS: The working group decided to include PD, as defined by International Classification of Diseases 11th revision (ICD-11). Eleven core outcomes and three optional outcomes across four health domains (mental health, behaviour, functioning and recovery) were defined as those relevant for people with PD. Validated measures for the selected outcomes were selected, some covering more than one outcome. Case-mix variables were aligned to other ICHOM mental health standard sets and consisted of demographic factors and those related to the treatment that people received. The group recommended that most outcomes are measured at baseline and annually. CONCLUSION: The international minimum standard set of outcomes has the potential to improve clinical decision making through systematic measurement and comparability. This will be key in improving the standard of health care for people with PD across the world.

Standardization of health outcomes assessment for depression and anxiety: recommendations from the ICHOM Depression and Anxiety Working Group.

PURPOSE: National initiatives, such as the UK Improving Access to Psychological Therapies program (IAPT), demonstrate the feasibility of conducting empirical mental health assessments on a large scale, and similar initiatives exist in other countries. However, there is a lack of international consensus on which outcome domains are most salient to monitor treatment progress and how they should be measured. The aim of this project was to propose (1) an essential set of outcome domains relevant across countries and cultures, (2) a set of easily accessible patient-reported instruments, and (3) a psychometric approach to make scores from different instruments comparable. METHODS: Twenty-four experts, including ten health outcomes researchers, ten clinical experts from all continents, two patient advocates, and two ICHOM coordinators worked for seven months in a consensus building exercise to develop recommendations based on existing evidence using a structured consensus-driven modified Delphi technique. RESULTS: The group proposes to combine an assessment of potential outcome predictors at baseline (47 items: demographics, functional, clinical status, etc.), with repeated assessments of disease-specific symptoms during the treatment process (19 items: symptoms, side effects, etc.), and a comprehensive annual assessment of broader treatment outcomes (45 items: remission, absenteeism, etc.). Further, it is suggested reporting disease-specific symptoms for depression and anxiety on a standardized metric to increase comparability with other legacy instruments. All recommended instruments are provided online ( www.ichom.org ). CONCLUSION: An international standard of health outcomes assessment has the potential to improve clinical decision making, enhance health care for the benefit of patients, and facilitate scientific knowledge.