The RIPI-f (Reporting Integrity of Psychological Interventions delivered face-to-face) checklist was developed to guide reporting of treatment integrity in face-to-face psychological interventions

Methodological Challenges in Randomized Controlled Trials of mHealth Interventions: Cross-Sectional Survey Study and Consensus-Based Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Mobile health (mHealth) refers to using mobile communication devices such as smartphones to support health, health care, and public health. mHealth interventions have their own nature and characteristics that distinguish them from traditional health care interventions, including drug interventions. Thus, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mHealth interventions present specific methodological challenges. Identifying and overcoming those challenges is essential to determine whether mHealth interventions improve health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify specific methodological challenges in RCTs testing mHealth interventions' effects and develop consensus-based recommendations to address selected challenges.

METHODS

A 2-phase participatory research project was conducted. First, we sent a web-based survey to authors of mHealth RCTs. Survey respondents rated on a 5-point scale how challenging they found 21 methodological aspects in mHealth RCTs compared to non-mHealth RCTs. Nonsystematic searches until June 2022 informed the selection of the methodological challenges listed in the survey. Second, a subset of survey respondents participated in an online workshop to discuss recommendations to address selected methodological aspects identified in the survey. Finally, consensus-based recommendations were developed based on the workshop discussion and email interaction.

RESULTS

We contacted 1535 authors of mHealth intervention RCTs, of whom 80 (5.21%) completed the survey. Most respondents (74/80, 92%) identified at least one methodological aspect as more or much more challenging in mHealth RCTs. The aspects most frequently reported as more or much more challenging were those related to mHealth intervention integrity, that is, the degree to which the study intervention was implemented as intended, in particular managing low adherence to the mHealth intervention (43/77, 56%), defining adherence (39/79, 49%), measuring adherence (33/78, 42%), and determining which mHealth intervention components are used or received by the participant (31/75, 41%). Other challenges were also frequent, such as analyzing passive data (eg, data collected from smartphone sensors; 24/58, 41%) and verifying the participants' identity during recruitment (28/68, 41%). In total, 11 survey respondents participated in the subsequent workshop (n=8, 73% had been involved in at least 2 mHealth RCTs). We developed 17 consensus-based recommendations related to the following four categories: (1) how to measure adherence to the mHealth intervention (7 recommendations), (2) defining adequate adherence (2 recommendations), (3) dealing with low adherence rates (3 recommendations), and (4) addressing mHealth intervention components (5 recommendations).

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs of mHealth interventions have specific methodological challenges compared to those of non-mHealth interventions, particularly those related to intervention integrity. Following our recommendations for addressing these challenges can lead to more reliable assessments of the effects of mHealth interventions on health outcomes.

Methodological challenges in systematic reviews of mHealth interventions: Survey and consensus-based recommendations

OBJECTIVE

Mobile Health (mHealth) refers to using mobile devices to support health. This study aimed to identify specific methodological challenges in systematic reviews (SRs) of mHealth interventions and to develop guidance for addressing selected challenges.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Two-phase participatory research project. First, we sent an online survey to corresponding authors of SRs of mHealth interventions. On a five-category scale, survey respondents rated how challenging they found 24 methodological aspects in SRs of mHealth interventions compared to non-mHealth intervention SRs. Second, a subset of survey respondents participated in an online workshop to discuss recommendations to address the most challenging methodological aspects identified in the survey. Finally, consensus-based recommendations were developed based on the workshop discussion and subsequent interaction via email with the workshop participants and two external mHealth SR authors.

RESULTS

We contacted 953 corresponding authors of mHealth intervention SRs, of whom 50 (5 %) completed the survey. All the respondents identified at least one methodological aspect as more or much more challenging in mHealth intervention SRs than in non-mHealth SRs. A median of 11 (IQR 7.25-15) out of 24 aspects (46 %) were rated as more or much more challenging. Those most frequently reported were: defining intervention intensity and components (85 %), extracting mHealth intervention details (71 %), dealing with dynamic research with evolving interventions (70 %), assessing intervention integrity (69 %), defining the intervention (66 %) and maintaining an updated review (65 %). Eleven survey respondents participated in the workshop (five had authored more than three mHealth SRs). Eighteen consensus-based recommendations were developed to address issues related to mHealth intervention integrity and to keep mHealth SRs up to date.

CONCLUSION

mHealth SRs present specific methodological challenges compared to non-mHealth interventions, particularly related to intervention integrity and keeping SRs current. Our recommendations for addressing these challenges can improve mHealth SRs.

Psychosocial interventions to improve sexual functioning in women with cancer: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Many women with cancer struggle with sexual side effects during and after treatment. Although preliminary evidence indicates that psychosocial interventions may be efficacious in improving sexual functioning for women with cancer, no systematic review has summarized the state of the science in this area.

OBJECTIVES

The primary goal of this review was to narratively synthesize the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the efficacy of psychosocial interventions to address sexual dysfunction in women with cancer. A secondary goal was to describe the diversity of the included samples (ie, racial/ethnic and sexual minority).

METHODS

Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted examining RCTs of psychosocial interventions to improve sexual functioning for women with cancer. Articles were identified using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Two reviewers independently assessed each article for inclusion, with a third to resolve discrepancies.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included in the review, 12 of which provided sufficient information to calculate effect sizes. Ten of the 12 studies primarily aimed to improve sexual functioning, all of which demonstrated positive effects on at least 1 outcome of sexual functioning. In the 2 RCTs of psychosocial interventions in which sexual function was a secondary aim, effects were negligible (ds = -0.04 and -0.15). Commonalities among the studies with large effect sizes were that they included education, mindfulness/acceptance, and communication/relationship skills as intervention components. Of note, there was an overall lack of sample diversity across studies, and most studies failed to report the race/ethnicity or sexual orientation of the participants.

CONCLUSION

Results support interventions targeting sexual functioning outcomes for women with cancer and suggest that multimodal interventions including education, mindfulness/acceptance, and communication/relationship skills may be most effective. Future research should also focus on examining the efficacy and potential adaptations of extant sexual functioning interventions for underrepresented groups.

Economic evaluation of web-based guided self-help cognitive behavioral therapy-enhanced for binge-eating disorder compared to a waiting list: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim is to perform an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing guided self-help cognitive behavioral therapy-enhanced (CBT-E) for binge-eating disorder (BED) to a waiting list control condition.

METHODS

BED patients (N = 212) were randomly assigned to guided self-help CBT-E or the 3-month waiting list. Measurements took place at baseline and the end-of-treatment. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the number of binge-eating episodes during the last 28 days as an outcome indicator according to the eating disorder examination. A cost-utility analysis was performed using the EuroQol-5D.

RESULTS

The difference in societal costs over the 3 months of the intervention between both conditions was €679 (confidence interval [CI] 50-1330). The incremental costs associated with one incremental binge eating episode prevented in the guided self-help condition was approximately €18 (CI 1-41). From a societal perspective there was a 96% likelihood that guided self-help CBT-E led to a greater number of binge-eating episodes prevented, but at higher costs. Each additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was associated with incremental costs of €34,000 (CI 2494-154,530). With a 95% likelihood guided self-help CBT-E led to greater QALY gain at higher costs compared to waiting for treatment. Based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence willingness-to-pay threshold of €35,000 per QALY, guided self-help CBT-E can be considered cost-effective with a likelihood of 95% from a societal perspective.

DISCUSSION

Guided self-help CBT-E is likely a cost-effective treatment for BED in the short-term (3-month course of treatment). Comparison to treatment-as-usual is recommended for future research, as it enables an economic evaluation with a longer time horizon.

PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE

Offering treatment remotely has several benefits for patients suffering from binge-eating disorders. Guided self-help CBT-E is an efficacious and likely cost-effective treatment, reducing binge eating and improving quality-of-life, albeit at higher societal costs.