Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37368471›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2023

Differences Between Online Trial Participants Who Have Used Statutory Mental Health Services and Those Who Have Not: Analysis of Baseline Data From 2 Pragmatic Trials of a Digital Health Intervention.

Stefan Rennick-Egglestone, Chris Newby, Clare Robinson, Caroline Yeo, Fiona Ng, Rachel A Elliott, Yasmin Ali, Joy Llewellyn-Beardsley, Scott Pomberth, Julian Harrison and 5 more

Abstract readPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

15 authors.

Stefan Rennick-Egglestone *School of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4187-011X
Chris Newby *School of Medicine, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2936-8592
Clare RobinsonCentre for Evaluation and Methods, Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2673-2205
Caroline YeoSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3399-4729
Fiona NgSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8656-8830
Rachel A ElliottDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3650-0168
Yasmin AliSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0228-6562
Joy Llewellyn-BeardsleySchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0525-6358
Scott PomberthNarrative Experiences Online study Lived Experience Advisory Panel, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0009-0220-8175
Julian HarrisonNarrative Experiences Online study Lived Experience Advisory Panel, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4868-2605
Sean P GavanDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3659-056X
Pim CuijpersDepartment of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5497-2743
Stefan PriebeUnit for Social and Community Psychiatry (WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Service Development), Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9864-3394
Charlotte L HallNational Institute for Health Research MindTech-MedTech Co-operative, Mental Health & Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5412-6165
Mike SladeSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7020-3434

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0615-20016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health interventions (DHIs) are an established element of mental health service provision internationally. Regulators have positioned the best practice standard of evidence as an interventional study with a comparator reflective of standard care, often operationalized as a pragmatic trial. DHIs can extend health provision to those not currently using mental health services. Hence, for external validity, trials might openly recruit a mixture of people who have used mental health services and people who have not. Prior research has demonstrated phenomenological differences in mental health experience between these groups. Some differences between service users and nonservice users might influence the change created by DHIs; hence, research should systematically examine these differences to inform intervention development and evaluation work. This paper analyzes baseline data collected in the NEON (Narrative Experiences Online; ie, for people with experience of psychosis) and NEON-O (NEON for other [eg, nonpsychosis] mental health problems) trials. These were pragmatic trials of a DHI that openly recruited people who had used specialist mental health services and those who had not. All participants were experiencing mental health distress. NEON Trial participants had experienced psychosis in the previous 5 years.

objectiveThis study aims to identify differences in baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with specialist mental health service use for NEON Trial and NEON-O Trial participants.

methodsFor both trials, hypothesis testing was used to compare baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants in the intention-to-treat sample who had used specialist mental health services and those who had not. Bonferroni correction was applied to significance thresholds to account for multiple testing.

resultsSignificant differences in characteristics were identified in both trials. Compared with nonservice users (124/739, 16.8%), NEON Trial specialist service users (609/739, 82.4%) were more likely to be female (P<.001), older (P<.001), and White British (P<.001), with lower quality of life (P<.001) and lower health status (P=.002). There were differences in geographical distribution (P<.001), employment (P<.001; more unemployment), current mental health problems (P<.001; more psychosis and personality disorders), and recovery status (P<.001; more recovered). Current service users were more likely to be experiencing psychosis than prior service users. Compared with nonservice users (399/1023, 39%), NEON-O Trial specialist service users (614/1023, 60.02%) had differences in employment (P<.001; more unemployment) and current mental health problems (P<.001; more personality disorders), with lower quality of life (P<.001), more distress (P<.001), less hope (P<.001), less empowerment (P<.001), less meaning in life (P<.001), and lower health status (P<.001).

conclusionsMental health service use history was associated with numerous differences in baseline characteristics. Investigators should account for service use in work to develop and evaluate interventions for populations with mixed service use histories. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-020-04428-6.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesPsychotic DisordersFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthQuality of Lifemobile phonenonservice useonline interventiononline trialopen recruitmentservice use

Identifiers

PMID37368471
PMCPMC10337398

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.