Dataset Information

Does app-based unguided self-management improve mental health literacy, patient empowerment and access to care for people with mental health impairments? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Mental disorders pose a huge burden to both individuals and health systems. Symptoms and syndromes often remain undetected and untreated, resulting in comorbidity and chronification. Besides limited resources in healthcare systems, the treatment-gap is-to a large extent-caused by within-person barriers impeding early treatment seeking. These barriers include a lack of trust in professionals, fear of stigmatisation, or the desire to cope with problems without professional help. While unguided self-management interventions are not designed to replace psychotherapy, they may support early symptom assessment and recognition by reducing within-person barriers. Digital self-management solutions may also reduce inequalities in access to care due to external factors such as regional unavailability of services.

Methods and analysis

Approximately 1100 patients suffering from mild to moderate depressive, anxiety, sleep, eating or somatisation-related mental disorders will be randomised to receive either a low-threshold unguided digital self-management tool in the form of a transdiagnostic mental health app or care as usual. The primary outcomes will be mental health literacy, patient empowerment and access to care while secondary outcomes will be symptom distress and quality of life. Additional moderator and predictor variables are negative life events, personality functioning, client satisfaction, mental healthcare service use and application of self-management strategies. Data will be collected at baseline as well as 8 weeks and 6 months after randomisation. Data will be analysed using multiple imputation and analysis of covariance employing the intention-to-treat principle, while sensitivity analyses will be based on different multiple imputation parameters and a per-protocol analysis.

Ethics and dissemination

Approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Educational Science and Psychology at the Freie Universität Berlin. The results will be submitted to peer-reviewed specialised journals and presented at national and international conferences.

Trial registeration

The trial has been registered in the DRKS trial register (DRKS00022531);Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Kerber A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8286775 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This paper presents the results of a scoping review that examines the extent to which legal empowerment has been used as a strategy in efforts to improve access to quality health services in low- and middle-income countries. The review identifies lessons learned regarding legal empowerment program strategy, as well as impact on health empowerment and health outcomes, research gaps, areas of consensus and tension in the field.The review included three main sources of data: 1) peer-reviewed literature, 2) grey literature, and 3) interviews with key legal empowerment stakeholders. Peer-reviewed and grey literature were identified via keyword searches, and interviewees were identified by searching an organizational database and snowball sampling.The key findings were: first, there is very limited documentation on the use of legal empowerment strategies for improving health services. Second, the legal empowerment approach tends to be focussed on issues that communities themselves prioritize, often narrowly defined local challenges. However, legal empowerment as a strategy that pursues collective and individual remedies has the potential to contribute to structural change. Third, for this potential to be realised, legal empowerment entails building capacity of service providers and other duty bearers on health and related rights. Finally, the review also highlights the importance of trust-trust in state institutions, trust in the paralegals who support the process and trust in the channels of engagement with public authorities for grievance redress.Several gaps also became evident through the review, including lack of work on private health providers, lack of discussion of the 'empowerment' effects of legal empowerment programs, and limited exploration of risk and sustainability. The paper concludes with a caution that practitioners need to start with the health challenges they are trying to address, and then assess whether legal empowerment is an appropriate approach, rather than seeing it as a silver bullet.