Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29685864›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Development of a Mobile Clinical Prediction Tool to Estimate Future Depression Severity and Guide Treatment in Primary Care: User-Centered Design.

Caroline Wachtler, Amy Coe, Sandra Davidson, Susan Fletcher, Antonette Mendoza, Leon Sterling, Jane Gunn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Matching depression management to severity prognosis in primary care: results of the Target-D randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Caroline Wachtler *Department of Neurobiology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1317-7732
Amy Coe *Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3723-7645
Sandra Davidson *Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1432-8600
Susan Fletcher *Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6359-8650
Antonette Mendoza *Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6903-1169
Leon Sterling *Centre for Design Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4122-2465
Jane Gunn *Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8836-7525

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAround the world, depression is both under- and overtreated. The diamond clinical prediction tool was developed to assist with appropriate treatment allocation by estimating the 3-month prognosis among people with current depressive symptoms. Delivering clinical prediction tools in a way that will enhance their uptake in routine clinical practice remains challenging; however, mobile apps show promise in this respect. To increase the likelihood that an app-delivered clinical prediction tool can be successfully incorporated into clinical practice, it is important to involve end users in the app design process.

objectiveThe aim of the study was to maximize patient engagement in an app designed to improve treatment allocation for depression.

methodsAn iterative, user-centered design process was employed. Qualitative data were collected via 2 focus groups with a community sample (n=17) and 7 semistructured interviews with people with depressive symptoms. The results of the focus groups and interviews were used by the computer engineering team to modify subsequent protoypes of the app.

resultsIterative development resulted in 3 prototypes and a final app. The areas requiring the most substantial changes following end-user input were related to the iconography used and the way that feedback was provided. In particular, communicating risk of future depressive symptoms proved difficult; these messages were consistently misinterpreted and negatively viewed and were ultimately removed. All participants felt positively about seeing their results summarized after completion of the clinical prediction tool, but there was a need for a personalized treatment recommendation made in conjunction with a consultation with a health professional.

conclusionsUser-centered design led to valuable improvements in the content and design of an app designed to improve allocation of and engagement in depression treatment. Iterative design allowed us to develop a tool that allows users to feel hope, engage in self-reflection, and motivate them to treatment. The tool is currently being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Indexed as

decision support techniquesdepressionehealthmental healthprimary health careriskuser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID29685864
PMCPMC5938570

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.