Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38358971›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2024

Self-care interventions to assist family physicians with mental health care of older patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Feasibility, acceptability, and outcomes of a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Mark J Yaffe, Jane McCusker, Sylvie D Lambert, Jeannie Haggerty, Ari N Meguerditchian, Marc Pineault, Alexandra Barnabé, Eric Belzile, Simona Minotti, Manon de Raad

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mark J YaffeDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Jane McCuskerSt. Mary's Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Sylvie D LambertSt. Mary's Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Jeannie HaggertyDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Ari N MeguerditchianSt. Mary's Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Marc PineaultPlakett Clinical Services, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Alexandra BarnabéDepartment of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Eric BelzileSt. Mary's Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Simona MinottiSt. Mary's Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Manon de RaadSt. Mary's Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2147-5999
McGill University · CASt Mary's Hospital Centre · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has required family physicians to rapidly address increasing mental health problems with limited resources. Vulnerable home-based seniors with chronic physical conditions and commonly undermanaged symptoms of anxiety and depression were recruited in this pilot study to compare two brief self-care intervention strategies for the management of symptoms of depression and/or anxiety.

methodsWe conducted a pilot RCT to compare two tele-health strategies to address mental health symptoms either with 1) validated CBT self-care tools plus up to three telephone calls from a trained lay coach vs. 2) the CBT self-guided tools alone. The interventions were abbreviated from those previously trialed by our team, to enable their completion in 2 months. Objectives were to assess the feasibility of delivering the interventions during a pandemic (recruitment and retention); and assess the comparative acceptability of the interventions across the two groups (satisfaction and tool use); and estimate preliminary comparative effectiveness of the interventions on severity of depression and anxiety symptoms. Because we were interested in whether the interventions were acceptable to a wide range of older adults, no mental health screening for eligibility was performed.

results90 eligible patients were randomized. 93% of study completers consulted the self-care tools and 84% of those in the coached arm received at least some coaching support. Satisfaction scores were high among participants in both groups. No difference in depression and anxiety outcomes between the coached and non-coached participants was observed, but coaching was found to have a significant effect on participants' use and perceived helpfulness of the tools.

conclusionBoth interventions were feasible and acceptable to patients. Trained lay coaching increased patients' engagement with the tools. Self-care tools offer a low cost and acceptable remote activity that can be targeted to those with immediate needs. While effectiveness results were inconclusive, this may be due to the lack of eligibility screening for mental health symptoms, abbreviated toolkit, and fewer coaching sessions than those used in our previous effective interventions.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0460937.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsAgedFeasibility StudiesHumansMental HealthPhysicians, FamilyPilot ProjectsSelf Care

Identifiers

PMID38358971
PMCPMC10868770
OpenAlexW4391839436

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.