| Literature DB >> 31890619 |
Chelsea Arnold1, Kristi-Ann Villagonzalo1, Denny Meyer1, John Farhall2,3, Fiona Foley1, Michael Kyrios4, Neil Thomas1,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with psychosis demonstrate positive attitudes towards utilising digital technology in mental health treatment. Although preliminary research suggests digital interventions are feasible and acceptable in this population, little is known about how to best promote engagement with these resources. Candidate predictors include therapist support, sources of motivation and recovery style. Understanding what factors predict engagement will aid more effective design and implementation of digital interventions to improve clinical benefits.Entities:
Keywords: ACMTQ, Autonomous and Controlled Motivations for Treatment Questionnaire; Digital mental health; Digital technology; Engagement; IRR, Incidence rate ratio; Intervention; Psychosis; RSQ, Recovery Style Questionnaire; SCID, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders; SMART, Self-Management and Recovery Technology
Year: 2019 PMID: 31890619 PMCID: PMC6926321 DOI: 10.1016/j.invent.2019.100266
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Internet Interv ISSN: 2214-7829
Fig. 1SMART website video and features.
Fig. 2Participant flow diagram.
Demographic characteristics of participants.
| Variable | SMART only | SMART + email | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 41.3 (11.4) | 42.7 (10.8) | 42.0 (11.1) |
| Gender, n (% female) | 29 (57) | 25 (53) | 54 (55) |
| Level of education, n (%) | |||
| Primary school | 0 (0) | 2 (4) | 2 (2) |
| Secondary school | 22 (43) | 14 (30) | 36 (37) |
| Apprenticeship/diploma/certificate | 11 (22) | 10 (21) | 9 (9) |
| Bachelor's degree | 9 (18) | 18 (38) | 27 (28) |
| Post graduate degree | 9 (18) | 3 (6) | 12 (12) |
| Recent employment status, n (%) | |||
| Paid or self-employment | 16 (31) | 12 (26) | 28 (29) |
| Voluntary employment | 3 (6) | 5 (11) | 8 (8) |
| Unemployed | 24 (47) | 24 (51) | 48 (49) |
| Student | 8 (16) | 5 (11) | 13 (13) |
| Home duties | 0 (0) | 1 (2) | 1 (1) |
| SCID diagnosis, n (%) | |||
| Bipolar disorder w psychotic feat. | 13(25) | 16 (34) | 29 (30) |
| Major depression w psychotic feat. | 5 (10) | 4 (9) | 9 (9) |
| Schizoaffective disorder | 17 (33) | 11 (23) | 27 (28) |
| Schizophrenia | 16 (31) | 13 (28) | 30 (31) |
| Delusional disorder | 0 (0) | 3 (6) | 3 (3) |
| Disability support recipient, n (%) | 34 (67) | 37 (79) | 71 (72) |
| Confidence using Internet, n (%) | |||
| Confident without assistance | 40 (78) | 40 (85) | 80 (82) |
| Occasionally need assistance | 10 (20) | 7 (15) | 17 (17) |
| Assistance required | 1 (2) | 0 (0) | 1 (1) |
| Frequency of internet use, n (%) | |||
| More than once a day | 41 (80) | 42 (89) | 83 (85) |
| Once a day | 6 (12) | 2 (4) | 8 (8) |
| A few times a week | 1 (2) | 2 (4) | 3 (3) |
| Once a week | 1 (2) | 1 (2) | 2 (2) |
| Every few weeks | 2 (4) | 0 (0) | 2 (2) |
Comparison of engagement metrics by group.
| Engagement metric | SMART only ( | SMART+email ( | Total group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total logins, mean (SD) | 7.0 (5.3) | 13.3 (14.8) | 10.1 (11.4) | .005 |
| Total activities, mean (SD) | 36.3 (39.1) | 60.6 (64) | 47.9 (53.6) | .033 |
| Total unique activities, mean (SD) | 18.9 (20.0) | 30.2 (28.9) | 24.3 (25.2) | .032 |
| Total active activities, mean (SD) | 8.43 (14.8) | 16.7 (21.9) | 12.4 (18.9) | .006 |
| Weeks until final activity, mean (SD) | 7.3 (4.7) | 9.0 (4.2) | 8.1 (4.5) | .058 |
Note. Groups were compared by Mann-Whitney U tests.
Fig. 3Comparison of activities per week by group.
Spearmans rho correlations between continuous predictors and depth and breadth of use.
| Predictors | Depth of use | Breadth of use | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.19 | .059 | 0.12 | .239 |
| RSQb | 0.01 | .895 | 0.00 | .994 |
| ACMTQ-AUTONc | −0.07 | .526 | −0.08 | .415 |
| ACMTQ-CNTRLd | −0.24 | .019 | −0.24 | .019 |
a Spearmans rho.
b Recovery style questionnaire.
c Autonomous and controlled motivations for treatment questionnaire, autonomous scale.
d Autonomous and controlled motivations for treatment questionnaire, control scale.
Negative Binomial Regression for predictors of depth and breadth of use.
| Predictors | Depth of use | Breadth of use | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B (SE) | IRR | B (SE) | IRR | |||
| Condition (+/− email) | −1.41 (0.59) | 0.24 (0.08–0.77) | .016 | −1.43 (0.56) | 0.24 (0.08–0.73) | .012 |
| Gender | −0.34 (0.22) | 0.72 (0.47–1.09) | .121 | −0.28 (0.20) | 0.75 (0.50–1.13) | .168 |
| Tertiary education | −0.50 (0.22) | 0.61 (0.40–0.93) | .020 | −0.39 (0.20) | 0.68 (0.46–1.01) | .057 |
| Age | 0.02 (0.01) | 1.02 (1.01–1.04) | .013 | 0.02 (0.01) | 1.02 (1.00–1.04) | .036 |
| RSQ | 0.08 (0.13) | 1.08 (0.85–1.38) | .535 | 0.05 (0.12) | 1.05 (0.83–1.34) | .668 |
| ACMTQ-AUTON | 0.17 (0.12) | 1.18 (0.93–1.50) | .166 | 0.13 (0.12) | 1.14 (0.90–1.44) | .286 |
| ACMTQ-CNTRL | −0.42 (0.10) | 0.66 (0.54–0.80) | <.001 | −0.34 (0.10) | 0.71 (0.59–0.86) | .001 |
| Condition*ACMTQ-CNTRL | 0.31 (0.16) | 1.36 (1.00–1.85) | .049 | 0.31 (0.15) | 1.36 (1.01–1.83) | .042 |
Incidence rate ratio = exp.(B).
Recovery style questionnaire.
Autonomous and controlled motivations for treatment questionnaire, autonomous scale.
Autonomous and controlled motivations for treatment questionnaire, control scale.
Fig. 4Interaction between controlled motivation and condition on total activities.
Logistic regression for active use profile.
| Predictors | B (SE) | ExpB | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Condition (+/− email) | 1.41 (0.59) | 4.08 (1.28–12.94) | .017 |
| Gender | 0.096 (0.59) | 2.61 (0.82–8.31) | .105 |
| Tertiary education | 0.11 (0.56) | 1.12 (0.37–3.36) | .842 |
| Age | 0.001 (0.02) | 1.00 (0.96–1.05) | .958 |
| RSQ | 0.41 (0.36) | 1.50 (0.74–3.03) | .260 |
| ACMTQ-AUTON | −0.69 (0.34) | 0.50 (0.25–0.98) | .044 |
| ACMTQ-CNTRL | 0.17 (0.24) | 1.18 (0.74–1.90) | .490 |
Recovery style questionnaire.
Autonomous and controlled motivations for treatment questionnaire, autonomous scale.
Autonomous and controlled motivations for treatment questionnaire, control scale.