| 1. |
- Johansson, Peter, 1962-, et al.
(författare)
-
An internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy program adapted to patients with cardiovascular disease and depression : Randomized controlled trial
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Internet Research. - Toronto, Canada : Journal of Medical Internet Research. - 1438-8871. ; 21:10, s. 1-14
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Depression is a common cause of reduced well-being and prognosis in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, there is a lack of effective intervention strategies targeting depression.Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the effects of a nurse-delivered and adapted internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) program aimed at reducing depression in patients with CVD.Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted. A total of 144 patients with CVD with at least mild depression (Patient Health Questionnaire–9 [PHQ-9] score ≥5) were randomized 1:1 to a 9-week program of iCBT (n=72) or an active control participating in a Web-based discussion forum (online discussion forum [ODF], n=72). The iCBT program, which included 7 modules, was adapted to fit patients with CVD. Nurses with an experience of CVD care provided feedback and a short introduction to cognitive behavioral therapy. The primary outcome, depression, was measured using PHQ-9. Secondary outcomes were depression measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-rating version (MADRS-S), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured using Short Form 12 (SF-12) survey and EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), and the level of adherence. An intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputations was used. Between-group differences in the primary and secondary outcomes were determined by the analysis of covariance, and a sensitivity analysis was performed using mixed models. Results: Compared with ODF, iCBT had a significant and moderate treatment effect on the primary outcome depression (ie, PHQ-9; mean group difference=−2.34 [95% CI −3.58 to −1.10], P<.001, Cohen d=0.62). In the secondary outcomes, compared with ODF, iCBT had a significant and large effect on depression (ie, MADRS-S; P<.001, Cohen d=0.86) and a significant and moderate effect on the mental component scale of the SF-12 (P<.001, Cohen d=0.66) and the EQ-VAS (P<.001, Cohen d=0.62). Overall, 60% (n=43) of the iCBT group completed all 7 modules, whereas 82% (n=59) completed at least half of the modules. No patients were discontinued from the study owing to a high risk of suicide or deterioration in depression.Conclusions: Nurse-delivered iCBT can reduce depression and improve HRQoL in patients with CVD, enabling treatment for depression in their own homes and at their preferred time.
|
|
| 2. |
- Neher, Margit, et al.
(författare)
-
Perspectives of Policy Makers and Service Users Concerning the Implementation of eHealth in Sweden : Interview Study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Internet Research. - : JMIR Publications. - 1438-8871. ; 24:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Increasing life spans of populations and a growing demand for more advanced care make effective and cost-efficient provision of health care necessary. eHealth technology is often proposed, although research on barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of eHealth technology is still scarce and fragmented. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions concerning barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of eHealth among policy makers and service users and explore the ways in which their perceptions converge and differ. METHODS: This study used interview data from policy makers at different levels of health care (n=7) and service users enrolled in eHealth interventions (n=25). The analysis included separate qualitative content analyses for the 2 groups and then a second qualitative content analysis to explore differences and commonalities. RESULTS: Implementation barriers perceived by policy makers were that not all service users benefit from eHealth and that there is uncertainty about the impact of eHealth on the work of health care professionals. Policy makers also perceived political decision-making as complex; this included problems related to provision of technical infrastructure and lack of extra resources for health care digitalization. Facilitators were policy makers' conviction that eHealth is what citizens want, their belief in eHealth solutions as beneficial for health care practice, and their belief in the importance of health care digitalization. Barriers for service users comprised capability limitations and varied preferences of service users and a mismatch of technology with user needs, lack of data protection, and their perception of eHealth as being more time consuming. Facilitators for service users were eHealth technology design and match with their skill set, personal feedback and staff support, a sense of privacy, a credible sender, and flexible use of time.There were several commonalities between the 2 stakeholder groups. Facilitators for both groups were the strong impetus toward technology adoption in society and expectations of time flexibility. Both groups perceived barriers in the difficulties of tailoring eHealth, and both groups expressed uncertainty about the care burden distribution. There were also differences: policy makers perceived that their decision-making was very complex and that resources for implementation were limited. Service users highlighted their need to feel that their digital data were protected and that they needed to trust the eHealth sender. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions about barriers to and facilitators of eHealth implementation varied among stakeholders in different parts of the health care system. The study points to the need to reach an enhanced mutual understanding of priorities and overcome challenges at both the micro and macro levels of the health care system. More well-balanced decisions at the policy-maker level may lead to more effective and sustainable development and future implementation of eHealth.
|
|
| 3. |
- Rajabi Majd, N., et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy of a Theory-Based Cognitive Behavioral Technique App-Based Intervention for Patients With Insomnia : Randomized Controlled Trial
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Internet Research. - Toronto, ON, Canada : JMIR publications. - 1438-8871. ; 22:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Sleep hygiene is important for maintaining good sleep and reducing insomnia. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the long-term efficacy of a theory-based app (including cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT], theory of planned behavior [TPB], health action process approach [HAPA], and control theory [CT]) on sleep hygiene among insomnia patients. METHODS: The study was a 2-arm single-blind parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT). Insomnia patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group that used an app for 6 weeks (ie, CBT for insomnia [CBT-I], n=156) or a control group that received only patient education (PE, n=156) through the app. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postintervention. Primary outcomes were sleep hygiene, insomnia, and sleep quality. Secondary outcomes included attitudes toward sleep hygiene behavior, perceived behavioral control, behavioral intention, action and coping planning, self-monitoring, behavioral automaticity, and anxiety and depression. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the magnitude of changes in outcomes between the two groups and across time. RESULTS: Sleep hygiene was improved in the CBT-I group compared with the PE group (P=.02 at 1 month, P=.04 at 3 months, and P=.02 at 6 months) as were sleep quality and severity of insomnia. Mediation analyses suggested that perceived behavioral control on sleep hygiene as specified by TPB along with self-regulatory processes from HAPA and CT mediated the effect of the intervention on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers might consider using a CBT-I app to improve sleep among insomnia patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03605732; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03605732.
|
|
