Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37592231›Full record

Trial reportBMC psychiatry2023

Using EMPOWER in daily life: a qualitative investigation of implementation experiences.

Stephanie Allan, Sara Beedie, Hamish J McLeod, John Farhall, John Gleeson, Simon Bradstreet, Emma Morton, Imogen Bell, Alison Wilson-Kay, Helen Whitehill and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Stephanie AllanUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. stephanie.allan@glasgow.ac.uk.
Sara BeedieNHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Hamish J McLeodUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
John FarhallLa Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
John GleesonAustralian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
Simon BradstreetUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Emma MortonUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Imogen BellOrygen Centre of Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Alison Wilson-KayUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Helen WhitehillUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Claire MatrunolaUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
David ThomsonUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Andrea ClarkUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Andrew GumleyUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
University of Glasgow · GBAustralian Catholic University · AULa Trobe University · AUNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde · GBOrygen Youth Health · AUUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital self-management tools blended with clinical triage and peer support have the potential to improve access to early warning signs (EWS) based relapse prevention in schizophrenia care. However, the implementation of digital interventions in psychosis can be poor. Traditionally, research focused on understanding how people implement interventions has focused on the perspectives of mental health staff. Digital interventions are becoming more commonly used by patients within the context of daily life, which means there is a need to understand implementation from the perspectives of patients and carers.

methodsSemi-structured one-on-one interviews with 16 patients who had access to the EMPOWER digital self-management intervention during their participation in a feasibility trial, six mental health staff members who supported the patients and were enrolled in the trial, and one carer participant. Interviews focused on understanding implementation, including barriers and facilitators. Data were coded using thematic analysis.

resultsThe intervention was well implemented, and EMPOWER was typically perceived positively by patients, mental health staff and the carer we spoke to. However, some patients reported negative views and reported ideas for intervention improvement. Patients reported valuing that the app afforded them access to things like information or increased social contact from peer support workers that went above and beyond that offered in routine care. Patients seemed motivated to continue implementing EMPOWER in daily life when they perceived it was creating positive change to their wellbeing, but seemed less motivated if this did not occur. Mental health staff and carer views suggest they developed increased confidence patients could self-manage and valued using the fact that people they support were using the EMPOWER intervention to open up conversations about self-management and wellbeing.

conclusionsThe findings from this study suggest peer worker supported digital self-management like EMPOWER has the potential to be implemented. Further evaluations of these interventions are warranted, and conducting qualitative research on the feasibility gives insight into implementation barriers and facilitators, improving the likelihood of interventions being usable. In particular, the views of patients who demonstrated low usage levels would be valuable.

Indexed as

CommunicationPsychotic DisordersHumansMental HealthPeer GroupProbabilityImplementation scienceMhealthSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID37592231
PMCPMC10433590
OpenAlexW4385952307

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.