RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Despite promising outcomes, lack of engagement and poor adherence are barriers to treating mental health using digital CBT, particularly in minority groups. After conducting guided focus groups, a current mental health app was adapted to be more inclusive for minorities living with SCD. METHODS: Patients between the ages of 16-35 with SCD who reported experiencing anxiety or depression symptoms were eligible for this study. Once enrolled, participants were randomly assigned to receive one of two versions of a mental health app 1) the current version designed for the general population and 2) the adapted version. Baseline measures for depression, anxiety, pain and self-efficacy were completed at the start of the study and again at postintervention (minimum 4 weeks). RESULTS: Compared to baseline, pain (p = 0.03), self-efficacy (p = 0.007) and depression symptoms (p = 0.016) improved for the group that received the adapted app. Regardless of group assignment, a positive relationship (r = 0.47) was shown between app engagement and a change in depression symptoms (p = 0.042). DISCUSSION: Target enrollment for this study sought to enroll 40 participants. However, after difficulties locating qualified participants, enrollment criteria were adjusted to expand the population pool. Regardless of these efforts, the sample size for this study was still smaller than anticipated (n = 21). Additionally, irrespective of group approximately 40% of participants did not engage with the app. However, despite a small sample size and poor engagement, participants in the intervention group displayed better outcomes and showed trends for greater app interaction. CONCLUSION: These promising results should encourage future researchers to continue exploring ideal adaptations for implementing digital CBT in minority populations. Future studies should also consider implementing post-intervention surveys to help identify common factors relating to a lack of engagement.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Mental health service-users face important medication decisions; yet not all are active participants in the decision-making process. Little is known about which technology-supported interventions might effectively promote collaborative decision-making in psychiatric care. We compared the effectiveness of two technology-supported collaborative care decision-making approaches. METHOD: We used a cluster-randomized design with a mixed-methods approach. Participants were Medicaid-enrolled adults receiving psychiatric care in participating community mental health centers. Measurement-based care used computerized systematic symptom and medication screenings to inform provider decision-making. Person-centered care supported participants in completing computerized Health Reports and preparing to work with providers on collaborative decision-making about psychiatric care. Primary study outcomes included the patient experience of medication management and shared decision-making during psychiatric care. Analyses examined the impact of both approaches and explored moderating variables. We used qualitative methods to understand participation and implementation experiences. RESULTS: Across 14 sites 2,363 participants enrolled (1,162 in measurement-based care, 1,201 in person-centered care). We observed statistically significant improvements in patient experience of medication management scores for both study arms; however, the clinical significance of this change was minor. We found no significant changes for shared decision-making. Qualitative interviews revealed a range of factors associated usefulness of intervention assessment, provider-service-user communication, and site-level logistics. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We observed modest positive findings related to our patient-centered outcomes. We identified important implementation facilitators and barriers that can inform the implementation of future comparative effectiveness patient-centered research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
