Literature Collection

Despite increasing rates of co-morbid depression and obesity, few interventions target both conditions simultaneously, particularly in men. The SHED-IT: Recharge trial, conducted in 125 men with depressive symptoms and overweight or obesity, tested the efficacy of a gender-tailored eHealth program with integrated mental health support. The aims of this study were to examine the perceptions of men who received the SHED-IT: Recharge intervention in relation to recruitment, satisfaction with the program, and suggestions to improve the program. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted in a random sub-sample, stratified by baseline depression and weight status (n = 19, mean (SD) age 49.6 years (11.6), PHQ-9 score 9.0 (3.7), BMI 32.5 kg/m(2) (4.6)). Transcripts were analyzed using an inductive process by an independent qualitative researcher. Four themes emerged, namely, (i) specific circumstances determined men's motivation to enroll, (ii) unique opportunity to implement sustained physical and mental health changes compared to previous experiences, (iii) salience of the program elements, and (iv) further opportunities that build accountability could help maintain focus. Gender-tailored, self-directed lifestyle interventions incorporating mental health support are acceptable and satisfying for men experiencing depressive symptoms. These findings provide important insights for future self-guided lifestyle interventions for men with poor physical and mental health.

BACKGROUND: Most people with mental disorders, including those with severe and chronic disorders, are treated solely by their general practitioner (GP). Nevertheless, specialised mental health care may be required for specific patients. Notably, the accessibility of mental health specialist care is mainly complicated by (a) long waiting times for an appointment with specialists, (b) long travel distances to specialists, particularly in rural and remote areas, and (c) patients' reservations about mental health specialist care (including fear of being stigmatised by seeking such care). To mitigate those barriers, technology-based integrated care models have been proposed. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mental health specialist video consultations model versus treatment as usual in patients with depression or anxiety disorders in primary care. METHODS: In an individually randomised, prospective, two-arm superiority trial with parallel group design, N = 320 patients with anxiety and/or depressive disorder will be recruited in general practices in Germany. The intervention includes a newly developed treatment model based on video consultations with focus on diagnostics, treatment planning, and short-term intervention by mental health specialists. We will systematically compare the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and adverse effects of this new model with usual care by the GP: the primary outcome is the absolute change in the mean depressive and anxiety symptom severity measured on the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS) from baseline to 6 months after baseline assessment. Follow-up in both groups will be conducted by blinded outcome assessors at 6 months and 12 months after baseline. The main analysis will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. We will optimise the likelihood of treatment effectiveness by strict inclusion criteria for patients, enhanced intervention integrity, and conducting a process evaluation. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first confirmatory study on a video-based, integrated care model for the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders in GP patients in Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, United States National Institutes of Health NCT04316572 . Prospectively registered on 20 March 2020.

The mental status examination relies on the physician's clinical judgment for observation and interpretation. When concerns about a patient's cognitive functioning arise in a clinical encounter, further evaluation is indicated. This can include evaluation of a targeted cognitive domain or the use of a brief cognitive screening tool that evaluates multiple domains. To avoid affecting the examination results, it is best practice to ensure that the patient has a comfortable, nonjudgmental environment without any family member input or other distractions. An abnormal response in a domain may suggest a possible diagnosis, but neither the mental status examination nor any cognitive screening tool alone is diagnostic for any condition. Validated cognitive screening tools, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination or the St. Louis University Mental Status Examination, can be used; the tools vary in sensitivity and specificity for detecting mild cognitive impairment and dementia. There is emerging evidence for the validity of cognitive screening performed during telemedicine visits, but it should not replace in-person evaluation of patients who have comorbidities that would preclude reliable testing via telephone or video. The workup after abnormal results of a mental status examination or cognitive screening tool is based on clinical judgment and primarily focuses on ruling out reversible causes of impairment and considering the need for further neuropsychiatric evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial vulnerabilities (e.g. inadequate social support, financial insecurity, stress) and substance use elevate risks for adverse perinatal outcomes and maternal mental health morbidities. However, various barriers, including paucity of validated, simple and usable comprehensive instruments, impede execution of the recommendations to screen for such vulnerabilities in the first antenatal care visit. The current study presents findings from a newly implemented self-report tool created to overcome screening barriers in outpatient antenatal clinics. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart-review of 904 women who completed the Profile for Maternal & Obstetric Treatment Effectiveness (PROMOTE) during their first antenatal visit between June and December 2019. The PROMOTE includes the 4-item NIDA Quick Screen and 15 additional items that each assess a different psychosocial vulnerability. Statistical analysis included evaluation of missing data, and exploration of missing data patterns using univariate correlations and hierarchical clustering. RESULTS: Three quarters of women (70.0%) had no missing items. In the entire sample, all but four PROMOTE items (opioid use, planned pregnancy, educational level, and financial state) had < 5% missing values, suggesting good acceptability and feasibility. Several respondent-related characteristics such as lower education, less family support, and greater stress were associated with greater likelihood of missing items. Instrument-related characteristics associated with missing values were completing the PROMOTE in Spanish or question positioning at the end of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Conducting a comprehensive screening of theoretically and clinically meaningful vulnerabilities in an outpatient setting is feasible. Study findings will inform modifications of the PROMOTE and subsequent digitisation.

Background/Objectives: Pediatric chronic pain requires individualized care. The Pediatric Pain Screening Tool (PPST) allows for stratification of psychosocial and physical risk factors and may guide targeted interventions. However, its integration into multimodal physiotherapy programs remains unexplored. This exploratory feasibility case series study evaluated a PPST-guided, risk-stratified multimodal physiotherapy intervention in children aged 8-17 years with chronic pain. Methods: Participants were classified as low, medium, or high risk. Interventions were tailored accordingly. Outcomes were assessed pre- and post-intervention and included pain intensity, pain interference, psychological distress, and quality of life. Results: Ten participants (mean age = 13.5 years; 60% girls) were included. Six were classified as high, three as medium, and one as low risk based on the PPST. After an 8-week physiotherapist intervention program, pain interference significantly decreased (MD = -7.5; p = 0.040; d = 1.69), as did pain intensity at rest (MD = -3.1; p = 0.002; d = 2.60) and during movement (MD = -3.0; p = 0.004; d = 2.55), exceeding the MCID of 1.92. In the high-risk group, reductions were observed in anxiety (p = 0.006; d = 2.36), pain-related worries (p = 0.001; d = 3.79), fear of movement (p = 0.015; d = 1.62), and fear of pain (p = 0.002; d = 3.37). Eighty percent reported feeling "a great deal better" in the PGIC including all high-risk participants. Conclusions: These results supports the feasibility of integrating PPST risk stratification into multimodal management, providing a structured and effective framework for addressing pediatric chronic pain.