| 1. |
- Topooco, Naira, et al.
(författare)
-
Attitudes towards digital treatment for depression: A European stakeholder survey
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Internet Interventions. - : Elsevier. - 2214-7829. ; 8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The integration of digital treatments into national mental health services is on the agenda in the European Union. The E-COMPARED consortium conducted a survey aimed at exploring stakeholders’ knowledge, acceptance and expectations of digital treatments for depression, and at identifying factors that might influence their opinions when considering the implementation of these approaches. Method An online survey was conducted in eight European countries: France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and The United Kingdom. Organisations representing government bodies, care providers, service-users, funding/insurance bodies, technical developers and researchers were invited to participate in the survey. The participating countries and organisations reflect the diversity in health care infrastructures and e-health implementation across Europe. Results A total of 764 organisations were invited to the survey during the period March–June 2014, with 175 of these organisations participating in our survey. The participating stakeholders reported moderate knowledge of digital treatments and considered cost-effectiveness to be the primary incentive for integration into care services. Low feasibility of delivery within existing care services was considered to be a primary barrier. Digital treatments were regarded more suitable for milder forms of depression. Stakeholders showed greater acceptability towards blended treatment (the integration of face-to-face and internet sessions within the same treatment protocol) compared to standalone internet treatments. Organisations in countries with developed e-health solutions reported greater knowledge and acceptability of digital treatments. Conclusion Mental health stakeholders in Europe are aware of the potential benefits of digital interventions. However, there are variations between countries and stakeholders in terms of level of knowledge about such interventions and their feasibility within routine care services. The high acceptance of blended treatments is an interesting finding that indicates a gradual integration of technology into clinical practice may fit the attitudes and needs of stakeholders. The potential of the blended treatment approach, in terms of enhancing acceptance of digital treatment while retaining the benefit of cost-effectiveness in delivery, should be further explored. Funding The E-COMPARED project has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 603098. © 2017 The Authors
|
|
| 2. |
- Wasserman, D, et al.
(författare)
-
Compulsory admissions of patients with mental disorders: State of the art on ethical and legislative aspects in 40 European countries
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists. - : Royal College of Psychiatrists. - 1778-3585. ; 63:1, s. e82-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background.Compulsory admission procedures of patients with mental disorders vary between countries in Europe. The Ethics Committee of the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) launched a survey on involuntary admission procedures of patients with mental disorders in 40 countries to gather information from all National Psychiatric Associations that are members of the EPA to develop recommendations for improving involuntary admission processes and promote voluntary care.Methods.The survey focused on legislation of involuntary admissions and key actors involved in the admission procedure as well as most common reasons for involuntary admissions.Results.We analyzed the survey categorical data in themes, which highlight that both medical and legal actors are involved in involuntary admission procedures.Conclusions.We conclude that legal reasons for compulsory admission should be reworded in order to remove stigmatization of the patient, that raising awareness about involuntary admission procedures and patient rights with both patients and family advocacy groups is paramount, that communication about procedures should be widely available in lay-language for the general population, and that training sessions and guidance should be available for legal and medical practitioners. Finally, people working in the field need to be constantly aware about the ethical challenges surrounding compulsory admissions.
|
|
