Search

Patient-reported assessments are transforming many facets of health care, but there is scope to modernize their delivery. Contemporary assessment techniques like computerized adaptive testing (CAT) and machine learning can be applied to patient-reported assessments to reduce burden on both patients and health care professionals; improve test accuracy; and provide individualized, actionable feedback. The Concerto platform is a highly adaptable, secure, and easy-to-use console that can harness the power of CAT and machine learning for developing and administering advanced patient-reported assessments. This paper introduces readers to contemporary assessment techniques and the Concerto platform. It reviews advances in the field of patient-reported assessment that have been driven by the Concerto platform and explains how to create an advanced, adaptive assessment, for free, with minimal prior experience with CAT or programming.

Patients with underlying comorbidities are particularly vulnerable to poor outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Despite the context-specific nature of vaccine hesitancy, there are currently no scales that incorporate disease or treatment-related hesitancy factors. We developed a six-item scale assessing disease-related COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and concerns (The Disease Influenced COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Scale-Six: DIVAS-6). A survey incorporating the DIVAS-6 was completed by 4683 participants with severe and/or chronic illness (3560 cancer; 842 diabetes; 281 multiple sclerosis (MS)). The survey included the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale, demographic, disease-related, and vaccination status questions. The six items loaded onto two factors (disease complacency and vaccine vulnerability) using exploratory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling. The two factors were internally consistent. Measurement invariance analysis showed the two factors displayed psychometric equivalence across the patient groups. Each factor significantly correlated with the two Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine scales, showing convergent validity. The summary score showed acceptable ability to discriminate vaccination status across diseases, with the total sample providing good-to-excellent discriminative ability. The DIVAS-6 has two factors measuring COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and concerns relating to potential complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to underlying disease (disease complacency) and vaccine-related impact on disease progression and treatment (vaccine vulnerability). This is the first validated scale to measure disease-related COVID-19 vaccine concerns and has been validated in people with cancer, diabetes, and MS. It is quick to administer and should assist with guiding information delivery about COVID-19 vaccination in medically vulnerable populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Automated virtual reality therapies are being developed to increase access to psychological interventions. We assessed the experience with one such therapy of patients diagnosed with psychosis, including satisfaction, side effects, and positive experiences of access to the technology. We tested whether side effects affected therapy. Methods: In a clinical trial 122 patients diagnosed with psychosis completed baseline measures of psychiatric symptoms, received gameChange VR therapy, and then completed a satisfaction questionnaire, the Oxford-VR Side Effects Checklist, and outcome measures. Results: 79 (65.8%) patients were very satisfied with VR therapy, 37 (30.8%) were mostly satisfied, 3 (2.5%) were indifferent/mildly dissatisfied, and 1 (0.8%) person was quite dissatisfied. The most common side effects were: difficulties concentrating because of thinking about what might be happening in the room (n = 17, 14.2%); lasting headache (n = 10, 8.3%); and the headset causing feelings of panic (n = 9, 7.4%). Side effects formed three factors: difficulties concentrating when wearing a headset, feelings of panic using VR, and worries following VR. The occurrence of side effects was not associated with number of VR sessions, therapy outcomes, or psychiatric symptoms. Difficulties concentrating in VR were associated with slightly lower satisfaction. VR therapy provision and engagement made patients feel: proud (n = 99, 81.8%); valued (n = 97, 80.2%); and optimistic (n = 96, 79.3%). Conclusions: Patients with psychosis were generally very positive towards the VR therapy, valued having the opportunity to try the technology, and experienced few adverse effects. Side effects did not significantly impact VR therapy. Patient experience of VR is likely to facilitate widespread adoption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Agoraphobic avoidance of everyday situations is a common feature in many mental health disorders. Avoidance can be due to a variety of fears, including concerns about negative social evaluation, panicking, and harm from others. The result is inactivity and isolation. Behavioural avoidance tasks (BATs) provide an objective assessment of avoidance and in situ anxiety but are challenging to administer and lack standardisation. Our aim was to draw on the principles of BATs to develop a self-report measure of agoraphobia symptoms. Method: The scale was developed with 194 patients with agoraphobia in the context of psychosis, 427 individuals in the general population with high levels of agoraphobia, and 1094 individuals with low levels of agoraphobia. Factor analysis, item response theory, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were used. Validity was assessed against a BAT, actigraphy data, and an existing agoraphobia measure. Test–retest reliability was assessed with 264 participants. Results: An eight-item questionnaire with avoidance and distress response scales was developed. The avoidance and distress scales each had an excellent model fit and reliably assessed agoraphobic symptoms across the severity spectrum. All items were highly discriminative (avoidance: a = 1.24–5.43; distress: a = 1.60–5.48), indicating that small increases in agoraphobic symptoms led to a high probability of item endorsement. The scale demonstrated good internal reliability, test–retest reliability, and validity. Conclusions: The Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale has excellent psychometric properties. Clinical cut-offs and score ranges are provided. This precise assessment tool may help focus attention on the clinically important problem of agoraphobic avoidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears. Methods: In total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January–5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey–injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears. Results: In total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97–2.40, p < 0.001. The population attributable fraction (PAF) indicated that if blood-injection-injury phobia were absent then this may prevent 11.5% of all instances of vaccine hesitancy, AF = 0.11; 95% CI 0.09–0.14, p < 0.001. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher scores on the Specific Phobia Scale, r = 0.22, p < 0.001, Medical Fear Survey, r = 0.23, p = <0.001 and injection fears, r = 0.25, p < 0.001. Injection fears were higher in youth and in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and explained a small degree of why vaccine hesitancy is higher in these groups. Conclusions: Across the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractObjectivesMethodResultsConclusionThere has been limited exploration into the nature and development of psychotic experiences (PEs) in Parkinson’s disease (PD). We aimed to comprehensively assess the frequency, severity, and associated distress of paranoia and unusual sensory experiences (USEs) in PD, and to assess what variables are significantly associated with these experiences, focussing on psychological processes central to understanding PEs in non-PD groups.A questionnaire battery was completed by 369 individuals with PD with a mean age of 66 years and mean time since diagnosis of 5 years. Recruitment was via Parkinson’s UK, social media, and local community groups. For a subset of measures, comparisons were made to age-matched controls using pre-existing data.182 (49%) participants reported USEs, including almost half of those not taking dopaminergic medication. For 83 (23%), the experience was distressing. Paranoia across the sample was significantly lower than in age-matched controls. However, specific paranoid concerns around abandonment (16%) and spousal betrayal (10%) were reported by some. Depression, anxiety, loneliness, and stigma and desire for support with PEs were high across the sample. Almost all psychological variables were significantly associated with PEs in structural equation models.PEs in PD are common, even in those not taking dopaminergic medication. For a small subset, these experiences are distressing and not resolved by existing treatment. Cognitive-affective variables like depression and anxiety could play a maintaining role in PEs in PD thus providing easy avenues for trialling intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Planning is an essential cognitive process of executive functions and is considered as one of the most important brain functions. Planning has been extensively studied in the field of neuropsychology, but there is a lack of computerized assessment tools of planning ability that are easily accessible to researchers and clinicians. The present study aims to validate a newly developed online spatial network test that is designed for both clinical and nonclinical populations. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a unidimensional factorial structure with moderate to high internal consistency in the test. Two-parameter logistic item response theory analysis showed acceptable item and model fit and no violation of the local independence assumption. The overall success rate exhibited a positive correlation with the performance of planning before attempting to solve the items. After correcting for attenuation, moderate to high correlations were found between the spatial network test and the International Cognitive Ability Resource 16 short form cognitive ability test and the automated perceptual maze test, respectively, demonstrating convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity. Future directions and potential applications of the spatial network test as an assessment tool to measure planning for researchers and clinicians are discussed in the end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]