Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36254189›Full record

ArticlePsychiatric research and clinical practice2022

Mental Health Care Provider's Perspectives Toward Adopting a Novel Technology to Improve Medication Adherence.

Joshua N Liberman, Tigwa Davis, Dawn Velligan, Delbert Robinson, William Carpenter, Chris Jaeger, Heidi Waters, Charles Ruetsch, Felicia Forma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatric research and clinical practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Joshua N LibermanHealth Analytics LLC Columbia Maryland USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4907-812X
Tigwa DavisHealth Analytics LLC Columbia Maryland USA.
Dawn VelliganUniversity of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio Texas USA.
Delbert RobinsonNorthwell Health Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research Hempstead New York USA.
William CarpenterUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USA.
Chris JaegerJHC Solutions LLC San Francisco California USA.
Heidi WatersOtsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization Inc Princeton New Jersey USA.
Charles RuetschHealth Analytics LLC Columbia Maryland USA.
Felicia FormaOtsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization Inc Princeton New Jersey USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To understand perspectives of mental health care providers regarding barriers and drivers of adopting a medication ingestible event monitoring (IEM) system in clinical practice. Methods: Between April and October 2019, a cross-sectional, online survey was conducted among 131 prescribing clinicians and 119 non-prescribing clinicians providing care to patients with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. Results: Most prescribing clinicians were physicians (79.4%) while most non-prescribing clinicians (52.9%) were licensed clinical social workers, followed by counselors (30.8%), clinical psychologists (13.4%), and case managers (2.5%). Most respondents (93.2%) reported that clinicians can influence adherence, that the IEM technology was in their patients' best interest (63.6%), and a willingness to beta test the technology (54.8%). Support was positively associated with prescribing clinicians (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1, 4.5), belief that antipsychotics reduce the health, social, or financial consequences of the condition (OR: 3.8; 95% CI: 1.3, 11.0), concern for patients' well-being without monitoring (OR: 3.3; 95% CI: 1.2, 8.7), and belief the technology will enhance clinical alliance (OR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.5, 6.3) or improve patient engagement (OR: 3.0; 95% CI: 1.5, 6.2). Support was inversely related to concerns about appropriate follow-up actions (OR: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2, 0.9) and responsibilities (OR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1, 0.8) when using the technology. Conclusions: Our results suggest that IEM sensor technology adoption will depend upon additional evidence that patients will actively engage in the use of the technology, will benefit from the technology through improved outcomes, and that the additional burden placed upon providers is minimal compared to the potential benefit.

Identifiers

PMID36254189
PMCPMC9558921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.