Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29061886›Full record

Trial reportEvidence-based mental health2017

Users' experiences of an online intervention for bipolar disorder: important lessons for design and evaluation.

Alyson L Dodd, Sara Mallinson, Martin Griffiths, Richard Morriss, Steven H Jones, Fiona Lobban

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Evidence-based mental health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Ensuring patient and public involvement in the transition to AI-assisted mental health care: A systematic scoping review and agenda for design justice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alyson L DoddDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8872-2272
Sara MallinsonAlberta Health Services/ Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Martin GriffithsSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health & Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Richard MorrissDepartment of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Steven H JonesSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health & Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Fiona LobbanSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health & Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0211-10001Department of Health PB-PG-0807-14075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe evidence base for digital interventions for physical and mental health, including severe and enduring mental health difficulties, is increasing. In a feasibility trial, web-based Enhanced Relapse Prevention (ERPonline) for bipolar disorder demonstrated high recruitment and retention rates. Relative to participants in the waitlist control group, those who received ERPonline showed increased monitoring for early warning signs of relapse and had developed more positive illness models.

objectiveTo understand users' motivations and barriers for taking part in an online/telephone-based trial, and for engagement with ERPonline.

methodsParticipants from the trial who had been allocated to receive ERPonline were purposively sampled to participate in telephone-based, in-depth qualitative interviews about their experiences. Interviews (n

findingsParticipants took part due to the convenient, flexible and rewarding aspects of the trial design, as well as a desire to improve the mental health of themselves and others. Barriers included extensive assessments, practical difficulties and mood. ERPonline was was generally considered to be accessible, relevant and straightforward, but there were individual preferences regarding design, content and who it was for. Several participants reported positive changes, but there was a sense that digital interventions should not replace routine care.

conclusionsThere are a number of barriers and facilitators to consider when evaluating and implementing digital interventions. Individual preferences and human contact were key factors for both trial design and engagement with an online intervention. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Digital interventions should be co-produced, personalised, interactive and embedded as one component in a broader package of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN56908625; Post-results.

Indexed as

AdultBipolar DisorderClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareQualitative ResearchResearch DesignSecondary PreventionTelephoneclinical trialsdepressionMental healthmood disordersqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID29061886
PMCPMC5750409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.