The Effect of Digital Health Interventions on Parents' Mental Health Literacy and Help Seeking for Their Child's Mental Health Problem: Systematic Review

Background

Many children with mental health problems do not receive professional help. Despite the frequent use of digital health interventions (DHIs) such as websites or web-based service navigation platforms, their effects on parents’ mental health literacy, help seeking, or uptake of professional services are unclear.

Objective

This study aims to provide a systematic review and narrative synthesis to describe whether DHIs improve the aforementioned parental outcomes.

Methods

Databases, including CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE OVID, PsycINFO, and PubMed (2000-2020), were accessed. Studies were included if they evaluated quantitative changes in mental health literacy, help seeking, or the uptake of services by parents of children with mental health problems. Theoretical frameworks, sample sizes, participant demographics, recruitment, interventions, DHI use, results, and health economic measures were used for data extraction.

Results

Of the 11,379 search results, 5 (0.04%) studies met the inclusion criteria. One randomized controlled trial found the reduced uptake of services after using a DHI coupled with a telephone coach for a child’s behavioral problem. Of 3 studies, 2 (66.7%) found statistically significant improvement in mental health literacy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder but had no control group. One study found nonsignificant improvement in mental health literacy and help-seeking attitudes toward anxiety and depression compared with those in active controls. All studies were rated as having a high or serious risk of bias. Search results were affected because of a single reviewer screening articles, overall low-quality studies, and a lack of consistent nomenclature.

Conclusions

There is no high-quality evidence that DHIs can improve parents’ mental health literacy, help seeking, or uptake of services. More research is needed to evaluate DHIs by using rigorous study designs and consistent measures.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020130074; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020130074

A Caregiver Digital Intervention to Support Shared Decision Making in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: Development Process and Stakeholder Involvement Analysis

Background

Parents and caregivers are generally recognized by literature and the law as key to child and adolescent mental health decisions. Digital interventions are increasingly being used to support care and treatment in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). However, evidence of the design and development process is generally not made available.

Objective

In light of calls for more transparency, this paper aims to describe the development of an evidence-based, theoretically informed digital decision support intervention for parents and caregivers of young people accessing CAMHS.

Methods

The intervention was developed in line with the UK Medical Research Council framework for developing complex interventions. The process incorporated the steps for developing patient decision aids, as follows: assessing need, assessing feasibility; defining objectives; identifying the framework of decision support; and selecting the methods, designs, and dissemination approach. We synthesized theory, research, international guidelines, and input from relevant stakeholders using an iterative design approach.

Results

The development steps resulted in Power Up for Parents, a decision support intervention, with five key features (ie, decisions, goals, journey, support, and resources). The intervention aims to encourage discussion, allow parents to ask questions during sessions or seek further information between sessions, and allow service providers to tailor the shared decision-making process to accommodate the needs of the parent and child.

Conclusions

We confirmed that it is possible to use input from end users—integrated with theory and evidence—to create digital interventions to be used in CAMHS. Key lessons with implications for practice, policy, and implementation science, along with preliminary findings, are presented.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/14571

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Digital Intervention to Support Shared Decision-making in Children's and Young People's Mental Health: Mixed Methods Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Interventions to involve parents in decisions regarding children’s and young people’s mental health are associated with positive outcomes. However, appropriately planning effectiveness studies is critical to ensure that meaningful evidence is collected. It is important to conduct pilot studies to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention itself and the feasibility of the protocol to test effectiveness.

Objective

This paper reports the findings from a feasibility and acceptability study of Power Up for Parents, an intervention to promote shared decision-making (SDM) and support parents and caregivers making decisions regarding children’s and young people’s mental health.

Methods

A mixed method study design was adopted. In stage 1, health care professionals and parents provided feedback on acceptability, usefulness, and suggestions for further development. Stage 2 was a multicenter, 3-arm, individual, and cluster randomized controlled pilot feasibility trial with parents accessing services related to children’s and young people’s mental health. Outcome measures collected data on demographics, participation rates, SDM, satisfaction, and parents’ anxiety. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Google Analytics estimates were used to report engagement with the prototype. Outcomes from both stages were tested against a published set of criteria for proceeding to a randomized controlled trial.

Results

Despite evidence suggesting the acceptability of Power Up for Parents, the findings suggest that recruitment modifications are needed to enhance the feasibility of collecting follow-up data before scaling up to a fully powered randomized controlled trial. On the basis of the Go or No-Go criteria, only 50% (6/12) of the sites successfully recruited participants, and only 38% (16/42) of parents completed follow-up measures. Nonetheless, health care practitioners and parents generally accessed and used the intervention. Themes describing appearance and functionality, perceived need and general helpfulness, accessibility and appropriateness, and a wish list for improvement emerged, providing valuable information to inform future development and refinement of the intervention.

Conclusions

Owing to the high attrition observed in the trial, proceeding directly to a full randomized controlled trial may not be feasible with this recruitment strategy. Nonetheless, with some minor adjustments and upgrades to the intervention, this pilot study provides a platform for future evaluations of Power Up for Parents.

Trial Registration

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 39238984; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN39238984.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/14571

A scoping review and assessment of essential elements of shared decision-making of parent-involved interventions in child and adolescent mental health

Parents play a critical role in child and adolescent mental health care and treatment. With the increasing implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) across health settings, there is a growing need to understand the decision support interventions used to promote SDM in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). The overall aim of this review is to identify and examine the existing decision support interventions available for parents. A broad search was conducted using the key concepts "shared decision-making", "parents" and "child and adolescent mental health". Five electronic databases were searched: PsycInfo, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. In addition to these relevant databases, we searched the Ottawa's Inventory of Decision Aids, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario website, Google, Google Play and known CAMHS' websites. The search identified 23 interventions available for use with parents. These interventions targeted parents providing care for children with ADHD, ASD, emotional and behavioural problems including depression (EBD), self-harm or universal mental health care. Various modalities including face-to-face, digital and paper-based versions were adopted. The majority of the interventions were able to "present options" (87%) and "discuss the pros and cons" (83%) of treatment. Time, accessibility and appropriateness of the intervention emerged as factors influencing usage and implementation of interventions. Our findings suggest that SDM interventions involving parents have been implemented differently across various presenting mental health difficulties in CAMHS. This review brings awareness of existing parent-involved interventions and has implications for the development, implementation and usage of new interventions.

What instruments should we use to assess paediatric decision-making interventions? A narrative review

There is an increasing number of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in paediatrics. However, there is little consensus as to the best instruments to assess the feasibility and impact of these interventions. This narrative review aims to answer: (1) what feasibility, knowledge and decision-making instruments have been used to assess paediatric SDM interventions and (2) what are the psychometric properties of used decision-making instruments, guided by the 'consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instrument' criteria. We conducted a review of the peer-reviewed literature. We identified 23 studies that evaluated a paediatric intervention to facilitate SDM for a specific health decision. Eighteen studies assessed intervention feasibility, with a wide variability in assessment between studies. Twelve studies assessed objective knowledge, and four studies assessed subjective knowledge with all but one study aggregating correct responses. We identified nine decision-making instruments that had been assessed psychometrically, although few had been thoroughly evaluated. The Decisional Conflict Scale was the most commonly-used instrument and the only instrument evaluated in paediatrics. Our study revealed a lack of consistency in the instruments used to evaluate decision-making interventions in paediatrics, making it difficult to compare interventions. We provide several recommendations for researchers to improve the assessment of SDM interventions in paediatrics.

Continue, adjust, or stop antipsychotic medication: developing and user testing an encounter decision aid for people with first-episode and long-term psychosis

BACKGROUND

People with psychosis struggle with decisions about their use of antipsychotics. They often want to reduce the dose or stop, while facing uncertainty regarding the effects these decisions will have on their treatment and recovery. They may also fear raising this issue with clinicians. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a shared decision making (SDM) tool to support patients and clinicians in making decisions about antipsychotics.

METHODS

A diverse editorial research team developed an Encounter Decision Aid (EDA) for patients and clinicians to use as part of the psychiatric consultation. The EDA was tested using 24 semistructured interviews with participants representing six stakeholder groups: patients with first-episode psychosis, patients with long-term psychosis, family members, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, and administrators. We used inductive and deductive coding of interview transcripts to identify points to revise within three domains: general impression and purpose of the EDA; suggested changes to the content, wording, and appearance; and usability and potential contribution to the psychiatric consultation.

RESULTS

An EDA was developed in an iterative process that yielded evidence-based answers to five frequently asked questions about antipsychotic medications. Patients with long-term psychosis and mental health counselors suggested more changes and revisions than patients with first-episode psychosis and psychiatrists. Family members suggested more revisions to the answers about potential risks of stopping or adjusting antipsychotics than other respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

The EDA was perceived as potentially useful and feasible in psychiatric routine care, especially if presented during the consultation.

Shared Decision Making in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of interventions to support shared decision making (SDM) with pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the efficacy of SDM interventions in pediatrics on patient-centered outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Ovid PsycInfo from database inception to December 30, 2013, and performed an environmental scan.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included interventions designed to engage pediatric patients, parents, or both in a medical decision, regardless of study design or reported outcomes.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

We reviewed all studies in duplicate for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was performed on 3 outcomes: knowledge, decisional conflict, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Sixty-one citations describing 54 interventions met eligibility criteria. Fifteen studies reported outcomes such that they were eligible for inclusion in meta-analysis. Heterogeneity across studies was high. Meta-analysis revealed SDM interventions significantly improved knowledge (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 2.17, P = .01) and reduced decisional conflict (SMD -1.20, 95% CI -2.01 to -0.40, P = .003). Interventions showed a nonsignificant trend toward increased satisfaction (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.78, P = .08).

LIMITATIONS

Included studies were heterogeneous in nature, including their conceptions of SDM.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

A limited evidence base suggests that pediatric SDM interventions improve knowledge and decisional conflict, but their impact on other outcomes is unclear.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42013004761 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013004761).

A systematic review of telehealth tools and interventions to support family caregivers

We conducted a systematic review of studies employing telehealth interventions which focused on family caregivers' outcomes. The Embase, CINHAL, Cochrane and PubMed databases were searched using combinations of keywords including "telehealth," "telemedicine," "telecare," "telemonitoring," "caregiver" and "family." The initial search produced 4205 articles, of which 65 articles met the inclusion criteria. The articles included 52 experimental studies, 11 evaluation studies, one case study and one secondary analysis. Thirty-three articles focused on family caregivers of adult and older patients, while 32 articles focused on parental caregivers of paediatric patients. The technologies included video, web-based, telephone-based and telemetry/remote monitoring. Six main categories of interventions were delivered via technology: education, consultation (including decision support), psychosocial/cognitive behavioural therapy (including problem solving training), social support, data collection and monitoring, and clinical care delivery. More than 95% of the studies reported significant improvements in the caregivers' outcomes and that caregivers were satisfied and comfortable with telehealth. The review showed that telehealth can positively affect chronic disease care, home and hospice care.

"Many miles to go …": a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Two decades of research has established the positive effect of using patient-targeted decision support interventions: patients gain knowledge, greater understanding of probabilities and increased confidence in decisions. Yet, despite their efficacy, the effectiveness of these decision support interventions in routine practice has yet to be established; widespread adoption has not occurred. The aim of this review was to search for and analyze the findings of published peer-reviewed studies that investigated the success levels of strategies or methods where attempts were made to implement patient-targeted decision support interventions into routine clinical settings.

METHODS

An electronic search strategy was devised and adapted for the following databases: ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, HMIC, Medline, Medline-in-process, OpenSIGLE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Social Services Abstracts, and the Web of Science. In addition, we used snowballing techniques. Studies were included after dual independent assessment.

RESULTS

After assessment, 5322 abstracts yielded 51 articles for consideration. After examining full-texts, 17 studies were included and subjected to data extraction. The approach used in all studies was one where clinicians and their staff used a referral model, asking eligible patients to use decision support. The results point to significant challenges to the implementation of patient decision support using this model, including indifference on the part of health care professionals. This indifference stemmed from a reported lack of confidence in the content of decision support interventions and concern about disruption to established workflows, ultimately contributing to organizational inertia regarding their adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems too early to make firm recommendations about how best to implement patient decision support into routine practice because approaches that use a 'referral model' consistently report difficulties. We sense that the underlying issues that militate against the use of patient decision support and, more generally, limit the adoption of shared decision making, are under-investigated and under-specified. Future reports from implementation studies could be improved by following guidelines, for example the SQUIRE proposals, and by adopting methods that would be able to go beyond the 'barriers' and 'facilitators' approach to understand more about the nature of professional and organizational resistance to these tools. The lack of incentives that reward the use of these interventions needs to be considered as a significant impediment.