Simon B Goldberg1,2,3, Benjamin Buck4,5, Shiri Raphaely6, John C Fortney7,8. 1. Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D) Center of Innovation (COIN), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, 1660 South Columbian Way, Seattle, WA, 98108, USA. sbgoldberg@wisc.edu. 2. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. sbgoldberg@wisc.edu. 3. Department of Counseling Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. sbgoldberg@wisc.edu. 4. VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 6. School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D) Center of Innovation (COIN), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, 1660 South Columbian Way, Seattle, WA, 98108, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article systematically reviews studies examining remote measurement-based care (RMBC), defined as using technology to measure patients' psychiatric symptoms outside the context of a clinical encounter. RECENT FINDINGS: Thirty-six studies were identified that measured patients' psychiatric symptoms remotely and provided feedback to treatment providers. The majority were single group designs. There was evidence supporting the short-term feasibility and acceptability of RMBC, although long-term sustainability was less clear. Thirteen randomized controlled trials were identified. RMBC was typically implemented as part of a multicomponent intervention (e.g., internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy with feedback to provider). Three studies experimentally isolated the clinical effects of RMBC, with two reporting no statistically significant differences between the RMBC and control conditions and one reporting greater symptom improvement associated with RMBC. RMBC appears feasible and acceptable and may be a promising intervention for improving mental health care, but additional experimental studies are needed.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article systematically reviews studies examining remote measurement-based care (RMBC), defined as using technology to measure patients' psychiatric symptoms outside the context of a clinical encounter. RECENT FINDINGS: Thirty-six studies were identified that measured patients' psychiatric symptoms remotely and provided feedback to treatment providers. The majority were single group designs. There was evidence supporting the short-term feasibility and acceptability of RMBC, although long-term sustainability was less clear. Thirteen randomized controlled trials were identified. RMBC was typically implemented as part of a multicomponent intervention (e.g., internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy with feedback to provider). Three studies experimentally isolated the clinical effects of RMBC, with two reporting no statistically significant differences between the RMBC and control conditions and one reporting greater symptom improvement associated with RMBC. RMBC appears feasible and acceptable and may be a promising intervention for improving mental health care, but additional experimental studies are needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Measurement-based care; Mobile health; Routine outcome monitoring; Technology; mHealth
Authors: Colin A Depp; Brent Mausbach; Eric Granholm; Veronica Cardenas; Dror Ben-Zeev; Thomas L Patterson; Barry D Lebowitz; Dilip V Jeste Journal: J Nerv Ment Dis Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.254
Authors: Michael Bauer; Tasha Glenn; Michael Keil; Rita Bauer; Wendy Marsh; Paul Grof; Martin Alda; Kemal Sagduyu; Greg Murray; Danilo Quiroz; Christopher Baethge; Peter C Whybrow Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: John C Fortney; Jürgen Unützer; Glenda Wrenn; Jeffrey M Pyne; G Richard Smith; Michael Schoenbaum; Henry T Harbin Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: David C Mohr; Colleen Stiles-Shields; Christopher Brenner; Hannah Palac; Enid Montague; Susan M Kaiser; Eric Carty-Fickes; Jenna Duffecy Journal: Int Conf Pervasive Comput Technol Healthc Date: 2015-05
Authors: David J Miklowitz; Jonathan Price; Emily A Holmes; Jennifer Rendell; Sarah Bell; Katie Budge; Jean Christensen; Joshua Wallace; Judit Simon; Neil M Armstrong; Lily McPeake; Guy M Goodwin; John R Geddes Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: Marie-Louise Mares; David H Gustafson; Joseph E Glass; Andrew Quanbeck; Helene McDowell; Fiona McTavish; Amy K Atwood; Lisa A Marsch; Chantelle Thomas; Dhavan Shah; Randall Brown; Andrew Isham; Mary Jane Nealon; Victoria Ward Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Benjamin Buck; Emily Scherer; Rachel Brian; Rui Wang; Weichen Wang; Andrew Campbell; Tanzeem Choudhury; Marta Hauser; John M Kane; Dror Ben-Zeev Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2019-03-30 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Benjamin Buck; Emily C Gagen; Tate F Halverson; Arundati Nagendra; Kelsey A Ludwig; John C Fortney Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2021-12-27 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Christian Rauschenberg; Anita Schick; Dusan Hirjak; Andreas Seidler; Isabell Paetzold; Christian Apfelbacher; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Ulrich Reininghaus Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Denise Chang; Andrew D Carlo; Sara Khor; Lauren Drake; E Sally Lee; Marc Avery; Jürgen Unützer; David R Flum Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Benjamin Buck; Kevin A Hallgren; Andrew T Campbell; Tanzeem Choudhury; John M Kane; Dror Ben-Zeev Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Patricia Gual-Montolio; Verónica Martínez-Borba; Juana María Bretón-López; Jorge Osma; Carlos Suso-Ribera Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-02 Impact factor: 3.390