Search

Objectives: Recent evidence suggests that e-mental health interventions can be effective at improving mental health but that there is still a notable hesitation among patients to use them. Previous research has revealed that they are perceived by patients as being less helpful than face-to-face psychotherapy. The reasons for this unfavorable perception are, however, not yet well understood. The aim of our study was to address this question by eliciting preferences for individual components of e-mental health interventions in a discrete choice experiment. Methods: Using a stepwise qualitative approach, we developed the following 5 attributes of eMHIs: introductory training, human contact, peer support, proven effectiveness, content delivery, and price. Additionally, we asked questions about respondents’ demographics, attitudes, and previous experience of traditional psychotherapy, as well as their distress level. Results: A total of 1984 respondents completed the survey. Using mixed logit models, we found that personal contact with a psychotherapist in blended care, proven effectiveness, and low price were highly valued by participants. Participants were indifferent toward the mode of content delivery but showed a slight preference for introductory training via phone, as well as for peer support via online forum alongside coach-led group meetings on site. Discussion: Our results suggest a clear preference for blended care that includes face-to-face contact with a psychotherapist. This preference remained stable irrespective of sociodemographics, previous experience of psychotherapy, distress level, and the 2 context scenarios used in our discrete choice experiment. Further investigations looking at the potential benefits and risks of blended care are needed.

Background: In this survey, we aimed to provide early insight into the impact of COVID-19 on blood donors and their motivation to donate during the crisis. Study design and methods: We asked representative samples in 7 European countries about their blood donation activity and motivation to donate using an online survey. We analysed donor turnout during the COVID-19 period descriptively and using logistic regression. Results: Of the 7122 people that responded to the survey, 1205 blood donors were identified, with 33·8% donating during the first 4–5 months of the COVID-19 period. We observed that around half of donors donated less than normal. The vast majority of donors that did donate made a special effort to do so in response to COVID-19. The majority of donors were also not aware of their blood being tested for COVID-19 antibodies. Although the perceived risk of infection among all respondents whilst donating blood was relatively low, those who anticipated a high risk of infection were much less likely to donate. Furthermore, those that were adherent to COVID guidelines were also less likely to donate. Discussion: We suggest that blood collection services consider specialist campaigns that focus on the altruistic motivation of donors during the crisis and that they continue to communicate the additional safety measures in place with the aim of reducing the fear of infection whilst donating blood.

Objectives: Recent evidence suggests that e-mental health interventions can be effective at improving mental health but that there is still a notable hesitation among patients to use them. Previous research has revealed that they are perceived by patients as being less helpful than face-to-face psychotherapy. The reasons for this unfavorable perception are, however, not yet well understood. The aim of our study was to address this question by eliciting preferences for individual components of e-mental health interventions in a discrete choice experiment. Methods: Using a stepwise qualitative approach, we developed the following 5 attributes of eMHIs: introductory training, human contact, peer support, proven effectiveness, content delivery, and price. Additionally, we asked questions about respondents’ demographics, attitudes, and previous experience of traditional psychotherapy, as well as their distress level. Results: A total of 1984 respondents completed the survey. Using mixed logit models, we found that personal contact with a psychotherapist in blended care, proven effectiveness, and low price were highly valued by participants. Participants were indifferent toward the mode of content delivery but showed a slight preference for introductory training via phone, as well as for peer support via online forum alongside coach-led group meetings on site. Discussion: Our results suggest a clear preference for blended care that includes face-to-face contact with a psychotherapist. This preference remained stable irrespective of sociodemographics, previous experience of psychotherapy, distress level, and the 2 context scenarios used in our discrete choice experiment. Further investigations looking at the potential benefits and risks of blended care are needed.

To understand the public sentiment toward the measures used by policymakers for COVID-19 containment, a survey among representative samples of the population in seven European countries was carried out in the first two weeks of April 2020. The study addressed people’s support for containment policies, worries about COVID-19 consequences, and trust in sources of information. Citizens were overall satisfied with their government’s response to the pandemic; however, the extent of approval differed across countries and policy measures. A north-south divide in public opinion was noticeable across the European states. It was particularly pronounced for intrusive policy measures, such as mobile data use for movement tracking, economic concerns, and trust in the information from the national government. Considerable differences in people’s attitudes were noticed within countries, especially across individual regions and age groups. The findings suggest that the epidemic acts as a stressor, causing health and economic anxieties even in households that were not directly affected by the virus. At the same time, the burden of stress was unequally distributed across regions and age groups. Based on the data collected, we draw lessons from the containment stage and identify several insights that can facilitate the design of lockdown exit strategies and future containment policies so that a high level of compliance can be expected.

In this editorial, we provide some first insights into this willingness to be vaccinated, based on a multi-country European study.

To understand the public sentiment toward the measures used by policymakers for COVID-19 containment, a survey among representative samples of the population in seven European countries was carried out in the first two weeks of April 2020. The study addressed people’s support for containment policies, worries about COVID-19 consequences, and trust in sources of information. Citizens were overall satisfied with their government’s response to the pandemic; however, the extent of approval differed across countries and policy measures. A north-south divide in public opinion was noticeable across the European states. It was particularly pronounced for intrusive policy measures, such as mobile data use for movement tracking, economic concerns, and trust in the information from the national government. Considerable differences in people’s attitudes were noticed within countries, especially across individual regions and age groups. The findings suggest that the epidemic acts as a stressor, causing health and economic anxieties even in households that were not directly affected by the virus. At the same time, the burden of stress was unequally distributed across regions and age groups. Based on the data collected, we draw lessons from the containment stage and identify several insights that can facilitate the design of lockdown exit strategies and future containment policies so that a high level of compliance can be expected.