Improving Adherence to Web-Based and Mobile Technologies for People With Psychosis: Systematic Review of New Potential Predictors of Adherence

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Despite the boom in new technologically based interventions for people with psychosis, recent studies suggest medium to low rates of adherence to these types of interventions. The benefits will be limited if only a minority of service users adhere and engage; if specific predictors of adherence can be identified then technologies can be adapted to increase the service user benefits.

Objective

The study aimed to present a systematic review of rates of adherence, dropout, and approaches to analyzing adherence to newly developed mobile and Web-based interventions for people with psychosis. Specific predictors of adherence were also explored.

Methods

Using keywords (Internet or online or Web-based or website or mobile) AND (bipolar disorder or manic depression or manic depressive illness or manic-depressive psychosis or psychosis or schizophr* or psychotic), the following databases were searched: OVID including MedLine, EMBASE and PsychInfo, Pubmed and Web of Science. The objectives and inclusion criteria for suitable studies were defined following PICOS (population: people with psychosis; intervention: mobile or Internet-based technology; comparison group: no comparison group specified; outcomes: measures of adherence; study design: randomized controlled trials (RCT), feasibility studies, and observational studies) criteria. In addition to measurement and analysis of adherence, two theoretically proposed predictors of adherence were examined: (1) level of support from a clinician or researcher throughout the study, and (2) level of service user involvement in the app or intervention development. We provide a narrative synthesis of the findings and followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting systematic reviews.

Results

Of the 20 studies that reported a measure of adherence and a rate of dropout, 5 of these conducted statistical analyses to determine predictors of dropout, 6 analyzed the effects of specific adherence predictors (eg, symptom severity or type of technological interface) on the effects of the intervention, 4 administered poststudy feedback questionnaires to assess continued use of the intervention, and 2 studies evaluated the effects of different types of interventions on adherence. Overall, the percentage of participants adhering to interventions ranged from 28-100% with a mean of 83%. Adherence was greater in studies with higher levels of social support and service user involvement in the development of the intervention. Studies of shorter duration also had higher rates of adherence.

Conclusions

Adherence to mobile and Web-based interventions was robust across most studies. Although 2 studies found specific predictors of nonadherence (male gender and younger age), most did not specifically analyze predictors. The duration of the study may be an important predictor of adherence. Future studies should consider reporting a universal measure of adherence and aim to conduct complex analyses on predictors of adherence such as level of social presence and service user involvement.

Related collections

Most cited references 36

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Schizophrenia: Effect Sizes, Clinical Models, and Methodological Rigor

Til Wykes, Craig Steel, Brian Everitt … (2007)

Background: Guidance in the United States and United Kingdom has included cognitive behavior therapy for psychosis (CBTp) as a preferred therapy. But recent advances have widened the CBTp targets to other symptoms and have different methods of provision, eg, in groups. Aim: To explore the effect sizes of current CBTp trials including targeted and nontargeted symptoms, modes of action, and effect of methodological rigor. Method: Thirty-four CBTp trials with data in the public domain were used as source data for a meta-analysis and investigation of the effects of trial methodology using the Clinical Trial Assessment Measure (CTAM). Results: There were overall beneficial effects for the target symptom (33 studies; effect size = 0.400 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.252, 0.548]) as well as significant effects for positive symptoms (32 studies), negative symptoms (23 studies), functioning (15 studies), mood (13 studies), and social anxiety (2 studies) with effects ranging from 0.35 to 0.44. However, there was no effect on hopelessness. Improvements in one domain were correlated with improvements in others. Trials in which raters were aware of group allocation had an inflated effect size of approximately 50%–100%. But rigorous CBTp studies showed benefit (estimated effect size = 0.223; 95% CI = 0.017, 0.428) although the lower end of the CI should be noted. Secondary outcomes (eg, negative symptoms) were also affected such that in the group of methodologically adequate studies the effect sizes were not significant. Conclusions: As in other meta-analyses, CBTp had beneficial effect on positive symptoms. However, psychological treatment trials that make no attempt to mask the group allocation are likely to have inflated effect sizes. Evidence considered for psychological treatment guidance should take into account specific methodological detail.

0 comments Cited 205 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Barriers to the uptake of computerized cognitive behavioural therapy: a systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative evidence.

Emma Waller, S Gilbody (2009)

Studies of cognitive behavioural therapy delivered by computer (cCBT) show clinical efficacy for treating anxiety and depression, but have not focused on barriers to uptake. Potential barriers include adverse consequences, accessibility and acceptability. An integrated systematic review was conducted of quantitative and qualitative studies and surveys from multiple electronic databases where computers delivered cCBT for anxiety or depression. Substantial numbers of potential participants are lost prior to trials commencing with little explanation. Among trial participants, drop-outs may be higher in the cCBT groups (odds ratio 2.03, 95% confidence interval 0.81-5.09). Only a median of 56% completed a full course of cCBT and personal circumstance was a more common cause of drop-out than difficulties with the technology or social background. Risk was rarely assessed in the majority of programs. Significant staff time was needed to support clients. Therapists were more negative about cCBT than clients. While cCBT is likely to be an effective and acceptable intervention for some people, there are barriers to its uptake that will substantially limit its impact if not addressed. These included investigating the outcome and attitudes of those who do not make it as far as cCBT trials and why so few finish a full course of cCBT.

0 comments Cited 176 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Effectiveness of Web-based Interventions on Patient Empowerment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

David Samoocha, David Bruinvels, Nieke A Elbers … (2010)

Background Patient empowerment is growing in popularity and application. Due to the increasing possibilities of the Internet and eHealth, many initiatives that are aimed at empowering patients are delivered online. Objective Our objective was to evaluate whether Web-based interventions are effective in increasing patient empowerment compared with usual care or face-to-face interventions. Methods We performed a systematic review by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases from January 1985 to January 2009 for relevant citations. From the 7096 unique citations retrieved from the search strategy, we included 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met all inclusion criteria. Pairs of review authors assessed the methodological quality of the obtained studies using the Downs and Black checklist. A meta-analysis was performed on studies that measured comparable outcomes. The GRADE approach was used to determine the level of evidence for each outcome. Results In comparison with usual care or no care, Web-based interventions had a significant positive effect on empowerment measured with the Diabetes Empowerment Scale (2 studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 - 0.94]), on self-efficacy measured with disease-specific self-efficacy scales (9 studies, SMD = 0.23, 95% CI 0.12 - 0.33), and on mastery measured with the Pearlin Mastery Scale (1 study, mean difference [MD] = 2.95, 95% CI 1.66 - 4.24). No effects were found for self-efficacy measured with general self-efficacy scales (3 studies, SMD = 0.05, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.35) or for self-esteem measured with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1 study, MD = -0.38, 95% CI -2.45 to 1.69). Furthermore, when comparing Web-based interventions with face-to-face deliveries of the same interventions, no significant (beneficial or harmful) effects were found for mastery (1 study, MD = 1.20, 95% CI -1.73 to 4.13) and self-esteem (1 study, MD = -0.10, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.25). Conclusions Web-based interventions showed positive effects on empowerment measured with the Diabetes Empowerment Scale, disease-specific self-efficacy scales and the Pearlin Mastery Scale. Because of the low quality of evidence we found, the results should be interpreted with caution. The clinical relevance of the findings can be questioned because the significant effects we found were, in general, small.

0 comments Cited 127 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Clare Killikelly:

Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & NeuroscienceDepartment of PsychologyKing's College LondonPO 78, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, 4, Windsor WalkLondon, SE5 8AFUnited Kingdom44 044 635 730944 044 635 7319clare.killikelly@kcl.ac.uk

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2661-4521

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

Journal ID (publisher-id): JMU

Title: JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Publisher: JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )

ISSN (Electronic): 2291-5222

Publication date Collection: July 2017

Publication date (Electronic): 20 July 2017

Volume: 5

Issue: 7

Electronic Location Identifier: e94

Affiliations

[1] ¹ Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience Department of Psychology King's College London London United Kingdom

[2] ² Division of Psychopathology and Clinical Intervention Department of Psychology University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland

[3] ³ Department of Psychology Aberystwyth University Ceredigion United Kingdom

[4] ⁴ South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust London United Kingdom

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Clare Killikelly clare.killikelly@ 123456kcl.ac.uk

Author information

Clare Killikelly http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2661-4521

Zhimin He http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9713-7457

Clare Reeder http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9151-1946

Til Wykes http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5881-8003

Article

Publisher ID: v5i7e94

DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.7088

PMC ID: 5544896

PubMed ID: 28729235

SO-VID: 2bfaf610-98fb-40e2-b6ec-e4d634604782

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mhealth and uhealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

History

Date received : 1 December 2016

Date revision requested : 19 January 2017

Date revision received : 3 March 2017

Date accepted : 14 March 2017

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 42

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 620

See all reference authors

Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
- celebrating 25 years of open access