J Simon1, K Budge2, J Price3, G M Goodwin3, J R Geddes3. 1. Department of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria; Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford and Oxford Health NHS Trust, OX3 7JX Oxford, UK; Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, OX3 7LF Oxford, UK. Electronic address: judit.simon@meduniwien.ac.at. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford and Oxford Health NHS Trust, OX3 7JX Oxford, UK; North Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, CO4 5HG Colchester, UK. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford and Oxford Health NHS Trust, OX3 7JX Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring of mood disorders may be an effective and low resource option for patient follow-up, but relevant evidence remains very limited. This study explores real-life compliance and health services impacts of mood monitoring among patients with bipolar disorder in the UK. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder who were registered users of the True Colours monitoring system for at least 12months at study assessment were included in this retrospective cohort study (n=79). Compliance was measured as the proportion of valid depression and mania scale messages received in comparison to their expected numbers over the first 12months of monitoring. Mental health service use data were extracted from case notes, costed using national unit costs, and compared 12months before (pre-TC period) and 12months after (TC period) patients' engagement with monitoring. Associations with relevant patient factors were investigated in a multiple regression model. RESULTS: Average compliance with monitoring was 82%. Significant increases in the annual use and costs of psychiatrist contacts and total mental health services were shown for patients newly referred to the clinic during the pre-TC period but not for long-term patients of the clinic. Psychiatric medication costs increased significantly between the pre-TC and TC periods (£235, P=0.005) unrelated to patients' referral status. CONCLUSIONS: Remote mood monitoring has good compliance among consenting patients with bipolar disorder. We found no associations between observed changes in mental health service costs and the introduction of monitoring except for the increase in psychiatric medication costs.
BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring of mood disorders may be an effective and low resource option for patient follow-up, but relevant evidence remains very limited. This study explores real-life compliance and health services impacts of mood monitoring among patients with bipolar disorder in the UK. METHODS:Patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder who were registered users of the True Colours monitoring system for at least 12months at study assessment were included in this retrospective cohort study (n=79). Compliance was measured as the proportion of valid depression and mania scale messages received in comparison to their expected numbers over the first 12months of monitoring. Mental health service use data were extracted from case notes, costed using national unit costs, and compared 12months before (pre-TC period) and 12months after (TC period) patients' engagement with monitoring. Associations with relevant patient factors were investigated in a multiple regression model. RESULTS: Average compliance with monitoring was 82%. Significant increases in the annual use and costs of psychiatrist contacts and total mental health services were shown for patients newly referred to the clinic during the pre-TC period but not for long-term patients of the clinic. Psychiatric medication costs increased significantly between the pre-TC and TC periods (£235, P=0.005) unrelated to patients' referral status. CONCLUSIONS: Remote mood monitoring has good compliance among consenting patients with bipolar disorder. We found no associations between observed changes in mental health service costs and the introduction of monitoring except for the increase in psychiatric medication costs.
Authors: Joseph M Cerimele; Simon B Goldberg; Christopher J Miller; Stephen W Gabrielson; John C Fortney Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Sarah M Goodday; Mary-Jane Attenburrow; Lauren Atkinson; Guy Goodwin; Kate Saunders; Matthew South; Clare Mackay; Mike Denis; Chris Hinds; Jim Davies; James Welch; William Stevens; Karen Mansfield; Juulia Suvilehto; John Geddes Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Joseph M Cerimele; Joan Russo; Amy M Bauer; Matt Hawrilenko; Jeffrey M Pyne; Gregory W Dalack; Kurt Kroenke; Jürgen Unützer; John C Fortney Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Judit Simon; Anees A Abdul Pari; Jane Wolstenholme; Michael Berger; Guy M Goodwin; John R Geddes Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 2.708