Search

Background: Health apps are a booming, yet under-regulated market, with potential consumer harms in privacy and health safety. Regulation of the health app market tends to be siloed, with no single sector holding comprehensive oversight. We sought to explore this phenomenon by critically analysing how the problem of health app regulation is being presented and addressed in the policy arena., Methods: We conducted a critical, qualitative case study of regulation of the Australian mental health app market. We purposively sampled influential policies from government, industry and non-profit organisations that provided oversight of app development, distribution or selection for use. We used Bacchi's critical, theoretical approach to policy analysis, analysing policy solutions in relation to the ways the underlying problem was presented and discussed. We analysed the ways that policies characterised key stakeholder groups and the rationale policy authors provided for various mechanisms of health app oversight., Results: We identified and analysed 29 policies from Australia and beyond, spanning 5 sectors: medical device, privacy, advertising, finance, and digital content. Policy authors predominantly framed the problem as potential loss of commercial reputations and profits, rather than consumer protection. Policy solutions assigned main responsibility for app oversight to the public, with a heavy onus on consumers to select safe and high-quality apps. Commercial actors, including powerful app distributors and commercial third parties were rarely subjects of policy initiatives, despite having considerable power to affect app user outcomes., Conclusion: A stronger regulatory focus on app distributors and commercial partners may improve consumer privacy and safety. Policy-makers in different sectors should work together to develop an overarching regulatory framework for health apps, with a focus on consumer protection., (© 2019 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Purpose: Many who seek primary health care advice about mental health may be using mobile applications (apps) claiming to improve well-being or relieve symptoms. We aimed to identify how prominent mental health apps frame mental health, including who has problems and how they should be managed., Methods: We conducted a qualitative content analysis of advertising material for mental health apps found online in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia during late 2016. Apps were included if they explicitly referenced mental health diagnoses or symptoms and offered diagnosis and guidance, or made health claims. Two independent coders analyzed app store descriptions and linked websites using a structured, open-ended instrument. We conducted interpretive analysis to identify key themes and the range of messages., Results: We identified 61 mental health apps: 34 addressed predominantly anxiety, panic, and stress (56%), 16 addressed mood disorders (26%), and 11 addressed well-being or other mental health issues (18%). Apps described mental health problems as being psychological symptoms, a risk state, or lack of life achievements. Mental health problems were framed as present in everyone, but everyone was represented as employed, white, and in a family. Explanations about mental health focused on abnormal responses to mild triggers, with minimal acknowledgment of external stressors. Therapeutic strategies included relaxation, cognitive guidance, and self-monitoring. Apps encouraged frequent use and promoted personal responsibility for improvement., Conclusions: Mental health apps may promote medicalization of normal mental states and imply individual responsibility for mental well-being. Within the health care clinician-patient relationship, such messages should be challenged, where appropriate, to prevent overdiagnosis and ensure supportive health care where needed., (© 2018 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Introduction: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common among children and adolescents who are exposed to trauma, and it is often associated with significant negative impacts on their psychosocial functioning and quality of life. Many types of psychotherapies have been found to be effective for PTSD in children and adolescents. However, due to the lack of direct comparisons between different psychotherapies, the hierarchy of treatment efficacy is still unclear. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of various types of psychotherapies for PTSD in children and adolescents., Methods and Analysis: A systematic search will be conducted among eight electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) and ProQuest Dissertations, from inception to October 2017. Randomised controlled trials, regardless of language, publication year and publication type, comparing any psychotherapies for PTSD to any control condition or alternative treatment in children and adolescents (18 years old or less) diagnosed with full or subclinical PTSD will be included. Study duration and the number of treatment sessions will not be limited. The primary outcome will be PTSD symptom severity at post-treatment as measured by a rating scale reported by the child, parent or a clinician. The secondary outcomes will include: (1) efficacy at follow-up; (2) acceptability (all-cause discontinuation); (3) anxiety symptom severity; (4) depressive symptom severity and (5) quality of life and functional improvement. Bayesian network meta-analyses for all relative outcome measures will be performed. We will conduct subgroup and sensitivity network meta-analyses to determine whether the findings are affected by study characteristics. The quality of the evidence contributing to network estimates of the primary outcome will be evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethical issues are foreseen. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, which will be disseminated electronically and in print. This network meta-analysis may be updated to inform and guide the clinical management of PTSD in children and adolescents., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42016051786., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SEH is an editor of the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group and an author on the Cochrane systematic review on treatments for PTSD in young people. During the last 2 years, DC reported past consultation for or the receipt of honoraria from Otsuka, Shire, Lundbeck and Roche. DG is the primary author of two reviews of psychological therapies for children and adolescents who were diagnosed with PTSD or exposed to trauma. YZ, XZ, LY, JRW, PC, JB, CDG, SY, XJ, TT , and PX declare nocompeting interests., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Apps targeted at health and wellbeing sit in a rapidly growing industry associated with widespread optimism about their potential to deliver accessible and cost-effective healthcare. App developers might not be aware of all the regulatory requirements and best practice principles are emergent. Health apps are regulated in order to minimise their potential for harm due to, for example, loss of personal health privacy, financial costs, and health harms from delayed or unnecessary diagnosis, monitoring and treatment. We aimed to produce a comprehensive guide to assist app developers in producing health apps that are legally compliant and in keeping with high professional standards of user protection., Methods: We conducted a case study analysis of the Australian and related international policy environment for mental health apps to identify relevant sectors, policy actors, and policy solutions., Results: We identified 29 policies produced by governments and non-government organisations that provide oversight of health apps. In consultation with stakeholders, we developed an interactive tool targeted at app developers, summarising key features of the policy environment and highlighting legislative, industry and professional standards around seven relevant domains: privacy, security, content, promotion and advertising, consumer finances, medical device efficacy and safety, and professional ethics. We annotated this developer guidance tool with information about: the relevance of each domain; existing legislative and non-legislative guidance; critiques of existing policy; recommendations for developers; and suggestions for other key stakeholders., Conclusions: We anticipate that mental health apps developed in accordance with this tool will be more likely to conform to regulatory requirements, protect consumer privacy, protect consumer finances, and deliver health benefit; and less likely to attract regulatory penalties, offend consumers and communities, mislead consumers, or deliver health harms. We encourage government, industry and consumer organisations to use and publicise the tool.

Background: Approximately 25% of people will be affected by a mental disorder at some stage in their life. Despite the prevalence and negative impacts of mental disorders, many people are not diagnosed or do not receive adequate treatment. Therefore primary health care has been identified as essential to improving the delivery of mental health care. Consultation liaison is a model of mental health care where the primary care provider maintains the central role in the delivery of mental health care with a mental health specialist providing consultative support. Consultation liaison has the potential to enhance the delivery of mental health care in the primary care setting and in turn improve outcomes for people with a mental disorder., Objectives: To identify whether consultation liaison can have beneficial effects for people with a mental disorder by improving the ability of primary care providers to provide mental health care., Search Methods: We searched the EPOC Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, in March 2014. We also searched reference lists of relevant studies and reviews to identify any potentially relevant studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared consultation liaison to standard care or other service models of mental health care in the primary setting. Included participants were people attending primary care practices who required mental health care or had a mental disorder, and primary care providers who had direct contact with people in need of mental health care., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted details including the study design, participants and setting, intervention, outcomes and any risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements by discussion or referral to a third author. We contacted trial authors to obtain any missing information.We collected and analysed data for all follow-up periods: up to and including three months following the start of treatment; between three and 12 months; and more than 12 months following the start of therapy.We used a random-effects model to calculate the risk difference (RD) for binary data and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB), if differences between groups were significant. The mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous data., Main Results: There were 8203 citations identified from database searches and reference lists. We included 12 trials with 2605 consumer participants and more than 905 primary care practitioner participants. Eleven trials compared consultation liaison to standard care and one compared consultation liaison to collaborative care, with a case manager co-ordinating mental health care. People with depression were included in eight trials; and one trial each included people with a variety of disorders: depression, anxiety and somatoform disorders; medically unexplained symptoms; and drinking problems. None of the included trials reported separate data for children or older people.There was some evidence that consultation liaison improved mental health up to three months following the start of treatment (two trials, n = 445, NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 25) but there was no evidence of its effectiveness between three and 12 months. Consultation liaison also appeared to improve consumer satisfaction (up to three months: one trial, n = 228, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 5; 3 to 12 months: two trials, n = 445, NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 17) and adherence (3 to 12 months: seven trials, n = 1251, NNTB 6, 95% CI 4 to 13) up to 12 months. There was also an improvement in the primary care provider outcomes of providing adequate treatment between three to 12 months (three trials, n = 797, NNTB 7, 95% CI 4 to 17) and prescribing pharmacological treatment up to 12 months (four trials, n = 796, NNTB 13, 95% CI 7 to 50). There was also some evidence that consultation liaison may not be as effective as collaborative care in regards to symptoms of mental disorder, disability, general health status, and provision of treatment.The quality of these findings were low for all outcomes however, apart from consumer adherence from three to 12 months, which was of moderate quality. Eight trials were rated a high risk of performance bias because consumer participants were likely to have known whether or not they were allocated to the intervention group and most outcomes were self reported. Bias due to attrition was rated high in eight trials and reporting bias was rated high in six., Authors' Conclusions: There is evidence that consultation liaison improves mental health for up to three months; and satisfaction and adherence for up to 12 months in people with mental disorders, particularly those who are depressed. Primary care providers were also more likely to provide adequate treatment and prescribe pharmacological therapy for up to 12 months. There was also some evidence that consultation liaison may not be as effective as collaborative care in terms of mental disorder symptoms, disability, general health status, and provision of treatment. However, the overall quality of trials was low particularly in regards to performance and attrition bias and may have resulted in an overestimation of effectiveness. More evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of consultation liaison for people with mental disorders particularly for those with mental disorders other than depression.

Background: Care delivery for the increasing number of people presenting at hospital emergency departments (EDs) with mental illness is a challenging issue. This review aimed to synthesise the research evidence associated with strategies used to improve ED care delivery outcomes, experience, and performance for adults presenting with mental illness. Method: We systematically reviewed the evidence regarding the effects of EDbased interventions for mental illness on patient outcomes, patient experience, and system performance, using a comprehensive search strategy designed to identify published empirical studies. Systematic searches in Scopus, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, and Medline were conducted in September 2023 (from inception; review protocol was prospectively registered in Prospero CRD42023466062). Eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) primary research study, published in English; and (2) (a) reported an implemented model of care or system change within the hospital ED context, (b) focused on adult mental illness presentations, and (c) evaluated system performance, patient outcomes, patient experience, or staff experience. Pairs of reviewers independently assessed study titles, abstracts, and full texts according to pre-established inclusion criteria with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Independent reviewers extracted data from the included papers using Covidence (2023), and the quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute suite of critical appraisal tools. Results: A narrative synthesis was performed on the included 46 studies, comprising pre-post (n = 23), quasi-experimental (n = 6), descriptive (n = 6), randomised controlled trial (RCT; n = 3), cohort (n = 2), cross-sectional (n = 2), qualitative (n = 2), realist evaluation (n = 1), and time series analysis studies (n = 1). Eleven articles focused on presentations related to substance use disorder presentation, 9 focused on suicide and deliberate self-harm presentations, and 26 reported mental illness presentations in general. Strategies reported include models of care (e.g., ED-initiated Medications for Opioid Use Disorder, ED-initiated social support, and deliberate self-harm), decision support tools, discharge and transfer refinements, case management, adjustments to liaison psychiatry services, telepsychiatry, changes to roles and rostering, environmental changes (e.g., specialised units within the ED), education, creation of multidisciplinary teams, and care standardisations. System performance measures were reported in 33 studies (72%), with fewer studies reporting measures of patient outcomes (n = 19, 41%), patient experience (n = 10, 22%), or staff experience (n = 14, 30%). Few interventions reported outcomes across all four domains. Heterogeneity in study samples, strategies, and evaluated outcomes makes adopting existing strategies challenging. Conclusion: Care for mental illness is complex, particularly in the emergency setting. Strategies to provide care must align ED system goals with patient goals and staff experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nursing handover is an established practice that involves an interchange of information between nurses to inform of the condition of patients. It is essential to nursing practice in terms of continuity and quality of patient care. However, there is a lack of agreement about the quality, content, and process of handover and, in particular, a lack of information specific to mental health contexts. This paper reports the results of exploratory research of the practice and beliefs about verbal nursing handover within an inpatient mental health rehabilitation setting. Qualitative data were obtained from audiotaped handovers and interviews with nurses and analysed using content analysis. Handovers were found to lack structure and content, be retrospective, problem-focused and inconsistent. The findings were fairly consistent with the literature and would likely be applicable across nursing settings; however, the need to appraise nursing handover in unique contexts was also revealed. The study raised questions about how nursing handover reflects the goals and philosophies of mental health rehabilitation and whether nursing handover is an activity fully integrated with the focus of mental health rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recruitment in mental health nursing is an international problem. Improving the undergraduate clinical placement experience may help to attract students into mental health nursing. In this paper, the authors describe the development and evaluation of a clinical facilitation program aimed at improving the placement experience. Students were surveyed about their attitudes to mental health nursing before and after placement. Based on the results from 254 pre-placement and 248 post-placement surveys there was a large significant increase in students' interest in mental health nursing following clinical placement. Data collected from focus groups also indicated that facilitators, students, and clinical nurses all viewed the program positively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which identified whether consultation liaison can have benefits for people with a mental disorder by improving the ability of primary care providers to provide mental healthcare. Topics include criteria for participants to be included in the study, trials undergone by people with depression, and evidence that consultation liaison improves mental health.

The article offers the author's insight on psychological therapies as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment in children and adolescent patients. She states that some therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is essential for the treatment of PTSD for up to a month after the treatment. She says that different types of trauma should be responded with specific and appropriate psychological therapies since different factors caused traumas.