Dataset Information

A Brief Intervention to Increase Uptake and Adherence of an Internet-Based Program for Depression and Anxiety (Enhancing Engagement With Psychosocial Interventions): Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Psychosocial, self-guided, internet-based programs are effective in treating depression and anxiety. However, the community uptake of these programs is poor. Recent approaches to increasing engagement (defined as both uptake and adherence) in internet-based programs include brief engagement facilitation interventions (EFIs). However, these programs require evaluation to assess their efficacy.

Objective

The aims of this hybrid implementation effectiveness trial are to examine the effects of a brief internet-based EFI presented before an internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy self-help program (myCompass 2) in improving engagement (uptake and adherence) with that program (primary aim), assess the relative efficacy of the myCompass 2 program, and determine whether greater engagement was associated with improved efficacy (greater reduction in depression or anxiety symptoms) relative to the control (secondary aim).

Methods

A 3-arm randomized controlled trial (N=849; recruited via social media) assessed the independent efficacy of the EFI and myCompass 2. The myCompass 2 program was delivered with or without the EFI; both conditions were compared with an attention control condition. The EFI comprised brief (5 minutes), tailored audio-visual content on a series of click-through linear webpages.

Results

Uptake was high in all groups; 82.8% (703/849) of participants clicked through the intervention following the pretest survey. However, the difference in uptake between the EFI + myCompass 2 condition (234/280, 83.6%) and the myCompass 2 alone condition (222/285, 77.9%) was not significant (n=565; χ²₁=29.2; P=.09). In addition, there was no significant difference in the proportion of participants who started any number of modules (1-14 modules) versus those who started none between the EFI + myCompass 2 (214/565, 37.9%) and the myCompass 2 alone (210/565, 37.2%) conditions (n=565; χ²₁<0.1; P=.87). Finally, there was no significant difference between the EFI + myCompass 2 and the myCompass 2 alone conditions in the number of modules started (U=39366.50; z=-0.32; P=.75) or completed (U=39494.0; z=-0.29; P=.77). The myCompass 2 program was not found to be efficacious over time for symptoms of depression (F_4,349.97=1.16; P=.33) or anxiety (F_4,445.99=0.12; P=.98). However, planned contrasts suggested that myCompass 2 may have been effective for participants with elevated generalized anxiety disorder symptoms (F_4,332.80=3.50; P=.01).

Conclusions

This brief internet-based EFI did not increase the uptake of or adherence to an existing internet-based program for depression and anxiety. Individuals' motivation to initiate and complete internet-based self-guided interventions is complex and remains a significant challenge for self-guided interventions.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001565235; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375839.

SUBMITTER: Batterham PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8367139 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, internet-delivered psychotherapeutic interventions (IPI) move increasingly into the focus of attention.MethodWe reviewed 39 randomized controlled studies of IPIs with 97 study arms (n = 4122 patients) for anxiety disorders (panic disorder/agoraphobia, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder) and performed a meta-analysis. Most studies were conducted with cognitive behavioural approaches (iCBT). Results were compared with a previous meta-analysis examining medications and face-to-face (F2F) psychotherapy.ResultsIn direct comparisons, IPIs were as effective as F2F-CBT and superior to waitlist controls. Programs with more intensive therapist contact yielded higher effect sizes (ES). We compared the obtained ES with a previous comprehensive meta-analysis of 234 studies. In this comparison, iCBT was less effective than individual F2F-CBT and medications, not different from pill placebos, and more effective than psychological placebo and waitlist (p > .0001 for all comparisons). ES of IPIs may be overestimated. Treatments were only compared to waitlist, which is not a sufficient control condition. 97% of the studies were not blinded with regard to the main outcome measure. 32% of the participants received antianxiety drugs during the trials. In 89%, participants were recruited by advertisements rather than from clinical settings, and 63% of the participants had an academic background (students or university employees) which might affect the generalizability of the findings. Remote diagnoses were often made by students without completed training in psychotherapy. In only 15% of the studies, diagnoses were made in personal contact with a psychiatrist or psychologist. In 44% of the studies, the 'therapists' maintaining remote contact with the participants were mostly students without completed psychotherapy education.ConclusionsIPIs may be a useful tool when face-to-face psychotherapy is not easily available, or as an add-on to standard psychotherapeutic or psychopharmacological treatments but should perhaps not be used as monotherapy. We have suggested standards for future research and the practical use of IPIs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Adherence to oral chemotherapy is crucial to maximize treatment outcomes and avoid health complications in cancer patients. Mobile phones are widely available worldwide, and evidence that this technology can be successfully employed to increase medication adherence for the treatment of other chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) is well established. However, the extent to which there is evidence that mobile phone-based interventions improve adherence to oral chemotherapy is unknown. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review aims to explore what is known about mobile phone-delivered interventions designed to enhance adherence to oral chemotherapy, to examine the reported findings on the utility of these interventions in increasing oral chemotherapy adherence, and to identify opportunities for development of future interventions. METHODS:This study followed Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodological framework. RESULTS:The review search yielded 5 studies reporting on 4 interventions with adults (aged >18 years) diagnosed with diverse cancer types. All interventions were considered acceptable, useful, and feasible. The following themes were evident: text messages and mobile apps were the main methods of delivering these interventions, the 2 most commonly employed oral chemotherapy adherence-enhancing strategies were management and reporting of drug-related symptoms and reminders to take medication, the importance of stakeholders' engagement in intervention design, and the overall positive perceptions of delivery features. Areas for future research identified by this review include the need for further studies to evaluate the impact of mobile phone-delivered interventions on adherence to oral chemotherapy as well as the relevance for future studies to incorporate design frameworks and economic evaluations and to explore the moderator effect of high anxiety, poor baseline adherence, and longer time taking prescribed drug on adherence to oral chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS:Despite the increasing body of evidence on the use of mobile phones to deliver medication adherence-enhancing interventions in chronic diseases, literature on the oral chemotherapy context is lacking. This review showed that existing interventions are highly acceptable and useful to cancer patients. The engagement of stakeholders as well as the use of a design framework are important elements in the development of mobile phone-delivered interventions that can be translated into oncology settings.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Internet- and mobile-based interventions are effective for the treatment of chronic pain. However, little is known about patients' willingness to engage with these types of interventions and how the uptake of such interventions can be improved. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to identify people's acceptance, uptake, and adherence (primary outcomes) with regard to an internet- and mobile-based intervention for chronic pain and the influence of an information video as an acceptance-facilitating intervention (AFI). METHODS:In this randomized controlled trial with a parallel design, we invited 489 individuals with chronic pain to participate in a Web-based survey assessing the acceptance of internet- and mobile-based interventions with the offer to receive an unguided internet- and mobile-based intervention for chronic pain after completion. Two versions of the Web-based survey (with and without AFI) were randomly sent to two groups: one with AFI (n=245) and one without AFI (n=244). Participants who completed the Web-based survey with or without AFI entered the intervention group or the control group, respectively. In the survey, the individuals' acceptance of pain interventions, measured with a 4-item scale (sum score ranging from 4 to 20), predictors of acceptance, sociodemographic and pain-related variables, and physical and emotional functioning were assessed. Uptake rates (log in to the intervention) and adherence (number of completed modules) to the intervention was assessed 4 months after intervention access. To examine which factors influence acceptance, uptake rate, and adherence in the internet- and mobile-based interventions, we conducted additional exploratory subgroup analyses. RESULTS:In total, 57 (intervention group) and 58 (control group) participants in each group completed the survey and were included in the analyses. The groups did not differ with regard to acceptance, uptake rate, or adherence (P=.64, P=.56, P=.75, respectively). Most participants reported moderate (68/115, 59.1%) to high (36/115, 31.3%) acceptance, with 9.6% (11/115) showing low acceptance (intervention group: mean 13.91, SD 3.47; control group: mean 13.61, SD 3.50). Further, 67% (38/57, intervention group) and 62% (36/58, control group) had logged into the intervention. In both groups, an average of 1.04 (SD 1.51) and 1.14 (SD 1.90) modules were completed, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The informational video was not effective with regard to acceptance, uptake rate, or adherence. Despite the high acceptance, the uptake rate was only moderate and adherence was remarkably low. This study shows that acceptance can be much higher in a sample participating in an internet- and mobile-based intervention efficacy trial than in the target population in routine health care settings. Thus, future research should focus not only on acceptance and uptake facilitating interventions but also on ways to influence adherence. Further research should be conducted within routine health care settings with more representative samples of the target population. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German Clinical Trial Registration DRKS00006183; http://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do ?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00006183 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/70ebHDhne).