Stakeholder perspectives on adjunctive mHealth services during transitions of care for patients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of research focuses on developing and testing interventions that leverage mental health-related mobile health (mHealth) services for patients with schizophrenia and other schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Yet, most formative research has focused on patient perspectives, with little attention paid to clinical stakeholders. AIMS: This qualitative study aimed to explore clinical stakeholders' (i.e., administrative supervisors, support staff, and clinicians) perspectives on what might help or hinder the use of mHealth, particularly when patients transition from inpatient to outpatient care. METHODS: In-depth individual qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 stakeholders from inpatient and outpatient psychiatric settings. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified: (a) adherence challenges; (b) role of mobile technology in patient care; (c) clinical professionals' receptiveness to adjunctive mHealth services; and, (d) costs related to implementation of mHealth services. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, stakeholders agree with extant data showing that supportive networks are important in facilitating patients' return to the community following hospitalization. Stakeholders welcome mHealth services but suggest they should be appropriately tailored to the population, both in terms of usability and connection to ongoing traditional treatments. Demonstration of added value will likely facilitate wider implementation of mHealth services in the care of patients with schizophrenia and other schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

Perspectives of suicide loss survivors: Qualitative analysis of data from a psychological autopsy study of U.S. Army soldiers.

INTRODUCTION: Suicide loss survivors can provide information not otherwise available about the circumstances preceding a suicide. In this study, we analyzed interview data from suicide loss survivors collected as part of a psychological autopsy study of U.S. Army soldiers. METHODS: Next-of-kin (NOK) (n = 61) and Army supervisors (SUP) (n = 107) of suicide decedents (n = 135) who had died in the last 2-3 months answered open-ended questions about suicide risk factors, ideas for improving suicide prevention, and the impact of the suicide. Responses were coded using conventional content analysis methods to identify common themes. RESULTS: Many NOK (30%) and SUP (50%) did not observe any signs of risk preceding the soldier's suicide. The most common idea regarding suicide prevention from SUP was that the suicide was inevitable, whereas NOK were more likely to emphasize the importance of increasing mental health treatment and reducing stigma. Both NOK and SUP reported negative effects of the suicide, but SUP reported some positive effects (e.g., increased unit connectedness). CONCLUSIONS: Results underscore the challenges of using informants to identify soldiers at high risk of suicide, given many respondents did not observe any warning signs. Findings also highlight attitudinal barriers present in the military that, if targeted, may increase soldiers' help-seeking and willingness to disclose their risk.

Examining tradeoffs between cognitive effort and relief among adults with self-injurious behavior.

BACKGROUND: People engage in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) to reduce negative affect, but it is not clear why they engage in this harmful type of behavior instead of using healthier strategies. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate whether people choose NSSI to reduce negative affect because they perceive it to be less cognitively costly than other available strategies. METHOD: In experiment one, 43 adults completed a novel, relief-based effort discounting task designed to index preferences about exerting cognitive effort to achieve relief. In experiment two, 149 adults, 52 % with a history of NSSI, completed our effort discounting task. RESULTS: Our main results suggest that people will accept less relief from an aversive experience if doing so requires expending less effort, i.e. they demonstrate effort discounting in the context of decisions about relief. We also found and that effort discounting is stronger among those with a history of NSSI, but this association became nonsignificant when simultaneously accounting for other conditions associated with aberrant effort tradeoffs. LIMITATIONS: The use of a control group without NSSI or other potentially harmful relief-seeking behaviors limits our ability to draw specific conclusions about NSSI. The ecological validity of our task was limited by a modestly effective affect manipulation, and because participants made hypothetical choices. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that preferences about exerting cognitive effort may be a barrier to using healthier affect regulation strategies. Further, the preference not to exert cognitive effort, though present in NSSI, is likely not unique to NSSI. Instead, effort discounting may be a transdiagnostic mechanism promoting an array of harmful relief-seeking behaviors.