Search

We examined caregiver’s knowledge, attitudes, and concerns about their child’s psychotropic medication regimen and the potential side effects, describe how they seek information regarding treatment, and ascertain their perspectives toward deprescribing. We surveyed 48 caregivers of children 6–17 years old treated with two or more psychotropic medications or an antipsychotic medication, analyzing outcomes using descriptive statistics. Almost all (N = 44, 92%) participants reported feeling very knowledgeable about why medications were prescribed, but only one-third (N = 16, 33%) reported feeling very knowledgeable about potential problems with long-term use or polypharmacy. Half of respondents (N = 24, 50%) reported asking their provider about reducing/stopping medications due to concerns about harmful effects, and nearly half (N = 20, 42%) reported stopping medications earlier than recommended. Interventions to engage caregivers in shared decision-making about complex medication regimens and to support prescribers to safely deprescribe psychotropic medications are needed to address caregivers’ concerns regarding psychotropic medication use.

Myriad digital tools exist to support mental health but there are multiple barriers to using these tools in routine care. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of an intervention incorporating a support role to help the clinical team identify and use technology to promote recovery. The technology specialist intervention is 3 months in duration and comprises four stages: goal setting, researching and evaluating tools, demonstrating and selecting tools, and ongoing support. We implemented the intervention in a community mental health center and a dual diagnosis treatment program, working with eight clients and their case managers. Clients and case managers willingly engaged with the technology specialist and found the intervention beneficial. Integration and collaboration with the care team facilitated implementation of the technology specialist in these real-world settings. Clients reported that the intervention made it easy to try a digital tool. Six of the eight participants stated that they made substantial progress toward their goals. The technology specialist is a promising new role for mental health care delivery to augment traditional services and enhance individualized recovery.

We evaluated an intensive, integrated treatment program for men with serious mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorder, which incorporated several evidence-based interventions. Independent researchers rated transcripts from quality improvement interviews to examine recovery in five key domains: housing, education/employment, family relationships, mental health, and substance use. The final sample comprised 82 participants; 60 (73.2%) had left the treatment program, and 22 (26.8%) remained engaged in services of varying intensity. Mean length of stay was 18.2 months (SD = 20.1). A large proportion of participants recovered on each domain (ranging from n = 40, 48.8% on education/employment to n = 55, 67.1% on substance use). Those who remained in treatment for at least a year (n = 37, 45.1%), compared with those who left earlier (n = 45, 54.9%), were significantly more likely to be in recovery in each of the five domains. Men with long-term dual disorders can achieve clinical and functional recovery when they receive intensive, integrated, evidence-based interventions for at least 1 year.

To identify and prioritize opportunities to improve the psychiatric boarding experience for youth awaiting admission or transfer to inpatient psychiatric care.This study utilized an exploratory mixed methods design. The study team convened multidisciplinary stakeholder focus groups to discuss proposed hospital-based solutions to mental health boarding, potential psychosocial interventions deliverable during boarding, and outcomes measurement. Focus group responses were transcribed and analyzed to extract themes pertaining to these improvement opportunities. These results informed a follow-up survey which was then sent to the stakeholders to rate the feasibility and importance of modifications using a modified RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method.Qualitative analyses revealed nine themes across two domains related to psychiatric boarding care: in-hospital improvements and transitions of care. The follow-up survey identified six improvement opportunities rated as both feasible and important. Additionally, six psychosocial interventions, two delivery modalities, and five outcomes were rated as both feasible and important.Stakeholders concerned with the psychiatric boarding of youth identified numerous opportunities for improving the boarding process within two domains of in-hospital improvements and transitions of care. Most of the improvements were considered feasible and important with several serving as particularly viable strategies. These have the potential for implementation to improve the care of this vulnerable population and inform local and national quality improvement efforts.

We examined caregiver's knowledge, attitudes, and concerns about their child's psychotropic medication regimen and the potential side effects, describe how they seek information regarding treatment, and ascertain their perspectives toward deprescribing.We surveyed 48 caregivers of children 6-17 years old treated with two or more psychotropic medications or an antipsychotic medication, analyzing outcomes using descriptive statistics.Almost all (N = 44, 92%) participants reported feeling very knowledgeable about why medications were prescribed, but only one-third (N = 16, 33%) reported feeling very knowledgeable about potential problems with long-term use or polypharmacy. Half of respondents (N = 24, 50%) reported asking their provider about reducing/stopping medications due to concerns about harmful effects, and nearly half (N = 20, 42%) reported stopping medications earlier than recommended.Interventions to engage caregivers in shared decision-making about complex medication regimens and to support prescribers to safely deprescribe psychotropic medications are needed to address caregivers' concerns regarding psychotropic medication use.

At least 20% of children in the U.S. are highly vulnerable because they lack healthcare and protection. Several factors produce vulnerability: trauma, disruptions of parenting, poverty, involvement in the juvenile justice and/or child welfare systems, residence in restrictive settings, and problems related to developmental disabilities. These children receive psychotropic medications at high rates, raising numerous concerns.The authors begin this review with a description of the population of highly vulnerable children. They then follow this with a review of the effectiveness and side effects of psychotropic medications for their most common diagnoses, using the highest-quality systematic reviews identified by multiple database searches.Highly vulnerable children receive numerous psychotropic medications with high rates of polypharmacy, off-label use, and long-term use, typically in the absence of adjunctive psychosocial interventions. The current evidence contravenes these trends. Future studies of psychotropic medications in vulnerable children should include long-term effectiveness trials and polypharmacy in conjunction with evidence-based, family-centered, psychosocial treatments.

Mental health leaves of absence have increased among college students, but little is known about their experiences. We explored the role of psychotherapy among college students before, during, and ...

Background and ObjectivePrescriptions for psychotropic medications to children have risen dramatically in recent years despite few regulatory approvals and growing concerns about side effects. Government policy and numerous programmes are attempting to curb this problem. However, the perspectives of practising clinicians have not been explored. To characterise the perspectives and experiences of paediatric primary care clinicians and mental health specialists regarding overprescribing and deprescribing psychotropic medications in children.MethodsWe conducted 24 semistructured interviews with clinicians representing diverse geographic regions and practice settings in the USA. Interview questions focused on clinician perspectives surrounding overprescribing and experiences with deprescribing. We transcribed audio files verbatim and verified them for accuracy. We analysed transcripts using a grounded theory approach, identifying emergent themes and developing a conceptual model using axial coding.ResultsAnalysis yielded themes within four domains: social and clinical contextual factors contributing to overprescribing, opportunities for deprescribing, and facilitators and barriers to deprescribing in paediatric outpatient settings. Most participants recognised the problem of overprescribing, and they described complex clinical and social contextual factors, as well as internal and external pressures, that contribute to overprescribing. Opportunities for deprescribing included identification of high-risk medications, routine reassessment of medication needs and recognition of the broader social needs of vulnerable children. Facilitators and barriers to deprescribing were both internal (eg, providing psychoeducation to families) and external (eg, parent and child preferences) to clinicians.ConclusionOur findings highlight a discrepancy between clinicians’ concerns about overprescribing and a lack of resources to support deprescribing in outpatient paediatric settings. To successfully initiate deprescribing, clinicians will need practical tools and organisational supports, as well as social resources for vulnerable families.

Mental health clinicians, clients, and researchers have shown keen interest in using technology to support mental health recovery. However, technology has not been routinely integrated into clinical care. Clients use a wide range of digital tools and apps to help manage their mental health, but clinicians rarely discuss this form of self-management in clinical interactions. This absence of communication is concerning because the safety and quality of the digital tools and apps people use may negatively affect their mental health outcomes. Mental health systems could benefit from someone to help identify technology-based supports that reflect current evidence and minimize privacy and security concerns. This technology specialist may also enhance the therapeutic bond between the client and the clinician. In working with a technology specialist, clients may begin to gain a sense of control over their mental health, and perhaps use fewer mental health services.

Background Mental health recovery refers to an individual’s experience of gaining a sense of personal control, striving towards one’s life goals, and meeting one’s needs. Although people with serious mental illness own and use electronic devices for general purposes, knowledge of their current use and interest in future use for supporting mental health recovery remains limited. Objective This study aimed to identify smartphone, tablet, and computer apps that mental health service recipients use and want to use to support their recovery. Methods In this pilot study, we surveyed a convenience sample of 63 mental health service recipients with serious mental illness. The survey assessed current use and interest in mobile and computer devices to support recovery. Results Listening to music (60%), accessing the internet (59%), calling (59%), and texting (54%) people were the top functions currently used by participants on their device to support their recovery. Participants expressed interest in learning how to use apps for anxiety/stress management (45%), mood management (45%), monitoring mental health symptoms (43%), cognitive behavioral therapy (40%), sleep (38%), and dialectical behavior therapy (38%) to support their recovery. Conclusions Mental health service recipients currently use general functions such as listening to music and calling friends to support recovery. Nevertheless, they reported interest in trying more specific illness-management apps.

BACKGROUND Mental health recovery refers to an individual’s experience of gaining a sense of personal control, striving towards one’s life goals, and meeting one’s needs. Although people with serious mental illness own and use electronic devices for general purposes, knowledge of their current use and interest in future use for supporting mental health recovery remains limited. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to identify smartphone, tablet, and computer apps that mental health service recipients use and want to use to support their recovery. METHODS In this pilot study, we surveyed a convenience sample of 63 mental health service recipients with serious mental illness. The survey assessed current use and interest in mobile and computer devices to support recovery. RESULTS Listening to music (60%), accessing the internet (59%), calling (59%), and texting (54%) people were the top functions currently used by participants on their device to support their recovery. Participants expressed interest in learning how to use apps for anxiety/stress management (45%), mood management (45%), monitoring mental health symptoms (43%), cognitive behavioral therapy (40%), sleep (38%), and dialectical behavior therapy (38%) to support their recovery. CONCLUSIONS Mental health service recipients currently use general functions such as listening to music and calling friends to support recovery. Nevertheless, they reported interest in trying more specific illness-management apps.

BackgroundThere is growing interest in using technology-based tools to support mental health recovery. Yet, despite evidence suggesting widespread access to technology among people with mental illnesses, interest in using technology to support mental health, and effectiveness of technology-based tools developed by researchers, such tools have not been widely adopted within mental health settings. Little is currently known about how mental health consumers are using technology to address mental health needs in real-world settings outside of controlled research studies.ObjectiveThis qualitative study examined current practices and orientations toward technology among consumers in 3 mental health settings in the United States.MethodsEthnographic observations and semistructured interviews were conducted. Observations focused on if and how technology was salient within the setting and documented relevant behaviors, interactions, and dialogue in fieldnotes. Ethnographic data informed the development of a semistructured interview that inquired into technology use and interest among consumers (n=15) in a community mental health setting. Fieldnotes and interview transcripts were reviewed and coded by multiple researchers. Key concepts and patterns identified were refined by the research team to develop the main findings.ResultsOwnership of technology, although common, was not ubiquitous and was varied across the sites. Participants had varying levels of awareness regarding the key capabilities of modern technologies. Participants used technology for many purposes, but there was limited evidence of technology use to support mental health. Technology-based tools specific to mental health were not routinely used, although some participants found widely available mobile apps to be helpful in recovery.ConclusionsQualitative findings suggest that many, but not all, clients will be interested in using technology to support mental health needs. The variability in type and quality of technology owned by participants suggests the need to design for a range of functionality in the development of mental health tools. Findings also suggest thinking broadly about using existing platforms and widely available tools to support consumers in mental health recovery.

BACKGROUND There is growing interest in using technology-based tools to support mental health recovery. Yet, despite evidence suggesting widespread access to technology among people with mental illnesses, interest in using technology to support mental health, and effectiveness of technology-based tools developed by researchers, such tools have not been widely adopted within mental health settings. Little is currently known about how mental health consumers are using technology to address mental health needs in real-world settings outside of controlled research studies. OBJECTIVE This qualitative study examined current practices and orientations toward technology among consumers in 3 mental health settings in the United States. METHODS Ethnographic observations and semistructured interviews were conducted. Observations focused on if and how technology was salient within the setting and documented relevant behaviors, interactions, and dialogue in fieldnotes. Ethnographic data informed the development of a semistructured interview that inquired into technology use and interest among consumers (n=15) in a community mental health setting. Fieldnotes and interview transcripts were reviewed and coded by multiple researchers. Key concepts and patterns identified were refined by the research team to develop the main findings. RESULTS Ownership of technology, although common, was not ubiquitous and was varied across the sites. Participants had varying levels of awareness regarding the key capabilities of modern technologies. Participants used technology for many purposes, but there was limited evidence of technology use to support mental health. Technology-based tools specific to mental health were not routinely used, although some participants found widely available mobile apps to be helpful in recovery. CONCLUSIONS Qualitative findings suggest that many, but not all, clients will be interested in using technology to support mental health needs. The variability in type and quality of technology owned by participants suggests the need to design for a range of functionality in the development of mental health tools. Findings also suggest thinking broadly about using existing platforms and widely available tools to support consumers in mental health recovery.

The ASAM-PPC-2R taxonomy of addiction treatment program dual diagnosis capability provides a conceptual model of services for persons with co-occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders. However, no objective study of this model has been conducted.This paper describes a survey of addiction treatment providers (n = 453) who were asked to identify their program as Addiction Only Services (AOS), Dual Diagnosis Capable (DDC) or Dual Diagnosis Enhanced (DDE). The survey also queried providers on prevalence estimates, clinical practices, and perceived barriers to treating persons with co-occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders.With brief definitions available to respondents, 92.9% of providers surveyed categorized their program as: AOS (23.0%), DDC (65.3%) or DDE (11.6%). Patient characteristics, clinical practices, and barriers to effective treatments varied by program dual diagnosis capability.The findings support the utility of the ASAM dual diagnosis capability taxonomy, and suggest specific avenues for system and program assessment and future research.

Co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is prevalent in addiction treatment programs and a risk factor for negative outcomes. Although interventions have been developed to address substance use and PTSD, treatment options are needed that are effective, well tolerated by patients, and potentially integrated with existing program services. This paper describes a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for PTSD that was adapted from a treatment for persons with severe mental illnesses and PTSD in community mental health settings. The new adaptation is for patients in community addiction treatment with co-occurring PTSD and substance use disorders. In this study, 5 community therapists delivered the CBT for PTSD. Outcome data are available on 11 patients who were assessed at baseline, post-CBT treatment, and at a 3-month follow-up post-treatment. Primary outcomes were substance use, PTSD severity, and retention, of which all were favorable for patients receiving the CBT for PTSD.