Search

BackgroundThe number of e-mental health apps is increasing rapidly. Studies have shown that the use of some apps is beneficial, whereas others are ineffective or do not meet users’ privacy expectations. Individuals and organizations that curate, recommend, host, use, or pay for apps have an interest in categorizing apps according to the consensus criteria of usability and effectiveness. Others have previously published recommendations for assessing health-related apps; however, the extent to which these recommendations can be generalized across different population groups (eg, culture, gender, and language) remains unclear. This study describes an attempt by Canadian stakeholders to develop an e-mental health assessment framework that responds to the unique needs of people living in Canada in an evidence-based manner. ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to achieve consensus from a broad group of Canadian stakeholders on guiding principles and criteria for a framework to assess e-mental health apps in Canada. MethodsWe developed an initial set of guiding principles and criteria from a rapid review and environmental scan of pre-existing app assessment frameworks. The initial list was refined through a two-round modified Delphi process. Participants (N=25) included app developers and users, health care providers, mental health advocates, people with lived experience of a mental health problem or mental illness, policy makers, and researchers. Consensus on each guideline or criterion was defined a priori as at least 70% agreement. The first round of voting was conducted electronically. Prior to Round 2 voting, in-person presentations from experts and a persona empathy mapping process were used to explore the perspectives of diverse stakeholders. ResultsOf all respondents, 68% (17/25) in Round 1 and 100% (13/13) in Round 2 agreed that a framework for evaluating health apps is needed to help Canadian consumers identify high-quality apps. Consensus was reached on 9 guiding principles: evidence based, gender responsive, culturally appropriate, user centered, risk based, internationally aligned, enabling innovation, transparent and fair, and based on ethical norms. In addition, 15 informative and evaluative criteria were defined to assess the effectiveness, functionality, clinical applicability, interoperability, usability, transparency regarding security and privacy, security or privacy standards, supported platforms, targeted users, developers’ transparency, funding transparency, price, user desirability, user inclusion, and meaningful inclusion of a diverse range of communities. ConclusionsCanadian mental health stakeholders reached the consensus on a framework of 9 guiding principles and 15 criteria important in assessing e-mental health apps. What differentiates the Canadian framework from other scales is explicit attention to user inclusion at all stages of the development, gender responsiveness, and cultural appropriateness. Furthermore, an empathy mapping process markedly influenced the development of the framework. This framework may be used to inform future mental health policies and programs.

The goal of sex and gender analysis is to promote rigorous, reproducible and responsible science. Incorporating sex and gender analysis into experimental design has enabled advancements across many disciplines, such as improved treatment of heart disease and insights into the societal impact of algorithmic bias. Here we discuss the potential for sex and gender analysis to foster scientific discovery, improve experimental efficiency and enable social equality. We provide a roadmap for sex and gender analysis across scientific disciplines and call on researchers, funding agencies, peer-reviewed journals and universities to coordinate efforts to implement robust methods of sex and gender analysis. The authors discuss the potential for sex and gender analysis to foster scientific discovery, improve experimental efficiency and enable social equality., Author(s): Cara Tannenbaum [sup.1] , Robert P. Ellis [sup.2] , Friederike Eyssel [sup.3] , James Zou [sup.4] [sup.5] , Londa Schiebinger [sup.6] Author Affiliations: (1) Institute of Gender and Health, [...]

For decades, the existence of a male or female brain was widely debated in popular culture; however, consensus has finally been reached. Data confirm, without a shadow of a doubt, [...]

The article presents a study which created deprescribing whiteboard videos and assessed the impact on healthcare provider self-efficacy on deprescribing. Topics discussed include an overview of the whiteboard videos created, how the self-efficacy of the respondents was assessed, and comparison of the proportion of respondents who reported high self-efficacy for each of the medication-specific videos before and after watching the video.

Background: While many studies have assessed and measured patient attitudes toward deprescribing, less quantitative research has addressed the provider perspective. We thus sought to describe provider knowledge, beliefs, and self‐efficacy to deprescribe, with a focus on opioids and sedative‐hypnotics. Methods: An electronic anonymous survey was distributed to primary care providers at Kaiser Permanente Washington. Two reminder emails were sent. The survey included 10 questions on general deprescribing, and six questions each specific to opioid and sedative‐hypnotic deprescribing. Knowledge questions used a multiple‐choice response option format. Questions addressing beliefs and self‐efficacy (i.e., confidence) used a 0–10 Likert scale. Scales were dichotomized at ≥7 to define agreement (belief questions) or confidence (self‐efficacy questions). We calculated descriptive statistics to summarize the responses. Results: Of 370 eligible primary care providers, 95 (26%) completed the survey. For general deprescribing questions, a majority believed that lack of patient willingness, withdrawal symptoms and fear of symptom return, and time constraints impeded deprescribing. Approximately half chose the correct answers about opioid deprescribing, 21% were confident that they could alleviate patient concerns about opioid tapering, and 32% were confident managing chronic non‐cancer pain without opioids. For sedative‐hypnotics, 64%–87% of respondents correctly answered questions about risks and the relative effectiveness of alternatives, but only one‐third correctly answered a question about sedative‐hypnotic tapering. Roughly half were confident in their ability to successfully engage patients in sedative deprescribing conversations and select alternatives. Only 54% and 34% were confident in writing a tapering protocol for opioids and sedative‐hypnotics, respectively. Conclusion: Results suggest that raising provider awareness of patient willingness to deprescribe, addressing knowledge gaps, and increasing self‐efficacy for deprescribing are important targets for improving deprescribing. Support for writing tapering protocols and prescribing evidence‐based drug and non‐drug alternatives may be important to improve care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]