Dataset Information

Mobile Diary App Versus Paper-Based Diary Cards for Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder: Economic Evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The cost-effectiveness of using a mobile diary app as an adjunct in dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) in patients with borderline personality disorder is unknown.

Objective

This study aims to perform an economic evaluation of a mobile diary app compared with paper-based diary cards in DBT treatment for patients with borderline personality disorder in a psychiatric outpatient facility.

Methods

This study was conducted alongside a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. The participants were recruited at 5 Danish psychiatric outpatient facilities and were randomized to register the emotions, urges, and skills used in a mobile diary app or on paper-based diary cards. The participants in both groups received DBT delivered by the therapists. A cost-consequence analysis with a time horizon of 12 months was performed. Consequences included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), depression severity, borderline severity, suicidal behavior, health care use, treatment compliance, and system usability. All relevant costs were included. Focus group interviews were conducted with patients, therapists, researchers, and industry representatives to discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of using a mobile diary app.

Results

A total of 78 participants were included in the analysis. An insignificantly higher number of participants in the paper group dropped out before the start of treatment (P=.07). Of those starting treatment, participants in the app group had an average of 37.1 (SE 27.55) more days of treatment and recorded an average of 3.16 (SE 5.10) more skills per week than participants in the paper group. Participants in both groups had a QALY gain and a decrease in depression severity, borderline severity, and suicidal behavior. Significant differences were found in favor of the paper group for both QALY gain (adjusted difference -0.054; SE 0.03) and reduction in depression severity (adjusted difference -1.11; SE 1.57). The between-group difference in total costs ranged from US $107.37 to US $322.10 per participant during the 12 months. The use of services in the health care sector was similar across both time points and groups (difference: psychiatric hospitalization <5 and <5; general practice -1.32; SE 3.68 and 2.02; SE 3.19). Overall, the patients showed high acceptability and considered the app as being easy to use. Therapists worried about potential negative influences on the therapist-patient interaction from new work tasks accompanying the introduction of the new technology but pointed at innovation potential from digital database registrations.

Conclusions

This study suggests both positive and negative consequences of mobile diary apps as adjuncts to DBT compared with paper diary cards. More research is needed to draw conclusions regarding its cost-effectiveness.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03191565; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03191565.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

RR2-10.2196/17737.

SUBMITTER: Laursen SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8663638 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDrugs are widely used in borderline personality disorder (BPD) treatment, chosen because of properties known from other psychiatric disorders ("off-label use"), mostly targeting affective or impulsive symptom clusters.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of drug treatment in BPD patients.Search strategyWe searched bibliographic databases according to the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group strategy up to September 2009, reference lists of articles, and contacted researchers in the field.Selection criteriaRandomised studies comparing drug versus placebo, or drug versus drug(s) in BPD patients. Outcomes included total BPD severity, distinct BPD symptom facets according to DSM-IV criteria, associated psychopathology not specific to BPD, attrition and adverse effects.Data collection and analysisTwo authors selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data, independently.Main resultsTwenty-eight trials involving a total of 1742 trial participants were included. First-generation antipsychotics (flupenthixol decanoate, haloperidol, thiothixene); second-generation antipsychotics (aripirazole, olanzapine, ziprasidone), mood stabilisers (carbamazepine, valproate semisodium, lamotrigine, topiramate), antidepressants (amitriptyline, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, phenelzine sulfate, mianserin), and dietary supplementation (omega-3 fatty acid) were tested. First-generation antipsychotics were subject to older trials, whereas recent studies focussed on second-generation antipsychotics and mood stabilisers. Data were sparse for individual comparisons, indicating marginal effects for first-generation antipsychotics and antidepressants.The findings were suggestive in supporting the use of second-generation antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, and omega-3 fatty acids, but require replication, since most effect estimates were based on single studies. The long-term use of these drugs has not been assessed.Adverse event data were scarce, except for olanzapine. There was a possible increase in self-harming behaviour, significant weight gain, sedation and changes in haemogram parameters with olanzapine. A significant decrease in body weight was observed with topiramate treatment. All drugs were well tolerated in terms of attrition.Direct drug comparisons comprised two first-generation antipsychotics (loxapine versus chlorpromazine), first-generation antipsychotic against antidepressant (haloperidol versus amitriptyline; haloperidol versus phenelzine sulfate), and second-generation antipsychotic against antidepressant (olanzapine versus fluoxetine). Data indicated better outcomes for phenelzine sulfate but no significant differences in the other comparisons, except olanzapine which showed more weight gain and sedation than fluoxetine. The only trial testing single versus combined drug treatment (olanzapine versus olanzapine plus fluoxetine; fluoxetine versus fluoxetine plus olanzapine) yielded no significant differences in outcomes.Authors' conclusionsThe available evidence indicates some beneficial effects with second-generation antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, and dietary supplementation by omega-3 fatty acids. However, these are mostly based on single study effect estimates. Antidepressants are not widely supported for BPD treatment, but may be helpful in the presence of comorbid conditions. Total BPD severity was not significantly influenced by any drug. No promising results are available for the core BPD symptoms of chronic feelings of emptiness, identity disturbance and abandonment. Conclusions have to be drawn carefully in the light of several limitations of the RCT evidence that constrain applicability to everyday clinical settings (among others, patients' characteristics and duration of interventions and observation periods).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient self-monitoring via mobile phones during psychotherapy can enhance and provide an overview of psychotherapeutic progress by graphically displaying current and previous symptom scores, providing feedback to the patient, delivering psychoeducative material, and providing timely data to the therapist or treatment team. OBJECTIVE:This study will aim to assess the effects of using a mobile phone to self-monitor symptoms and acquire coping skills instead of using pen and paper during psychotherapy in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). Dialectical behavior therapy will be performed to treat BPD. The primary outcome is the mean time needed to learn coping skills directed at emotion regulation; the secondary outcome is changes in the BPD symptom score as measured by the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder. METHODS:This study is a pragmatic, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Participants were recruited through five public general psychiatric outpatient treatment facilities in Denmark. Patients are randomly assigned, on a 1:1 basis, to either the mobile phone condition (using the Monsenso mDiary mobile app) or pen-and-paper condition. Patients will complete several self-report questionnaires on symptom severity; assessments by trained raters on BPD severity will be performed as well. Survival analysis with a shared frailty model will be used to assess the primary outcome. RESULTS:Recruitment began in June 2017 and was completed in February 2019 after 80 participants were recruited. The study ended in February 2020. It is expected that the benefits of mobile phone-based self-report compared to the pen-and-paper method will be demonstrated for skill learning speed and registration compliance. To our knowledge, this is the first trial exploring the impact of cloud-based mobile registration in BPD treatment. CONCLUSIONS:This trial will report on the effectiveness of mobile phone-based self-monitoring during psychiatric treatment. It has the potential to contribute to evidence-based clinical practice since apps are already in use clinically. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03191565; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03191565. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/17737.