Next Article in Journal
Effects of Two Short-Term Aerobic Exercises on Cognitive Function in Healthy Older Adults during COVID-19 Confinement in Japan: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Previous Article in Journal
Resident Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services in Hillside Forests
Previous Article in Special Issue
Understanding and Addressing Occupational Stressors in Internet-Delivered Therapy for Public Safety Personnel: A Qualitative Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 10
10.3390/ijerph19106203
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

What Comes after the Trial? An Observational Study of the Real-World Uptake of an E-Mental Health Intervention by General Practitioners to Reduce Depressive Symptoms in Their Patients

by
Margrit Löbner
1,*,
Janine Stein
1,
Melanie Luppa
1,
Markus Bleckwenn
2,
Anja Mehnert-Theuerkauf
3 and
Steffi G. Riedel-Heller
1
1
Institute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health, Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
2
Department of General Practice, Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
3
Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(10), 6203; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19106203
Submission received: 21 February 2022 / Revised: 3 May 2022 / Accepted: 18 May 2022 / Published: 19 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Internet-Based Interventions for the Prevention and Treatment of Mental Health Conditions)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Unguided and free e-mental health platforms can offer a viable treatment and self-help option for depression. This study aims to investigate, from a public health perspective, the real-world uptake, benefits, barriers, and implementation support needed by general practitioners (GPs). The study presents data from a spin-off GP survey conducted 2.5 years subsequent to a cluster-randomized trial. A total of N = 68 GPs (intervention group (IG) GPs = 38, control group (CG) GPs = 30) participated in the survey (response rate 62.4%). Data were collected via postal questionnaires. Overall, 66.2% of the GPs were female. The average age was 51.6 years (SD = 9.4), and 48.5% of the GPs indicated that they continued (IG) or started recommending (CG) the e-mental health intervention under real-world conditions beyond the trial. A number of benefits could be identified, such as ease of integration and strengthening patient activation in disease management. Future implementation support should include providing appealing informational materials and including explainer videos. Workshops, conferences, and professional journals were identified as suitable for dissemination. Social media approaches were less appealing. Measures should be taken to make it easier for health care professionals to use an intervention after the trial and to integrate it into everyday practice.

1. Introduction

Depression has been acknowledged as a major public health problem worldwide. According to the Global Burden of Disease report by the World Health Organization (WHO), depression is among the leading causes of disability [1]. E-mental health interventions, mostly relying on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), have shown their efficacy for a variety of mental health conditions [2,3,4,5], and especially for depression [6,7]. Electronic mental (e-mental) health involves digital interventions leveraging the Internet and related technologies, such as smartphone apps, websites, virtual reality-based interventions, or social media, to deliver mental health services, in order to promote and to improve mental health [8,9,10,11]. Even though effect sizes have been reported to be higher in guided interventions [12], unguided interventions have also been proven to be effective and are viable treatment and self-help options [13,14,15,16,17]. According to a new individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis, unguided Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) is just as effective in improving depressive symptoms among individuals with mild and subthreshold depression as guided iCBT [17]. In addition, the superiority of guided interventions seems to diminish in the long term [17]. In the current German National Disease Management Guideline (S3), low-threshold psychosocial interventions such as online programs are an “open recommendation” for mild depressive episodes [18]. Due to the increasing evidence base, digital interventions are expected to receive a stronger recommendation grade for mild depression in the S3-Guideline, which is currently being updated.
Most recently, however, evidence has emerged that the use of unguided e-mental health interventions may differ in real-world settings as compared to trial settings [19,20]. Recently published research suggests that the participation in a trial has a substantial impact on the user’s engagement in the e-mental health intervention [20]. Accordingly, adherence and completion rates of self-management interventions tend to be lower in real-world settings as compared to trial usage data [19,20]. Nevertheless, from a public health perspective, self-managed e-health interventions have the potential to reach a high number of people with little effort and minimal costs [21,22]. Because unguided iCBT has been effective in people with mild and subthreshold depression [17], general practitioners (GPs) or other related specialists could recommend unguided mental health platforms as adjunct treatment to other health care services. Additionally, health care professionals can increase the efficacy of e-health interventions simply by recommending them and asking follow-up questions about usage. It is likely that this sort of care by physicians with regard to recommending and following up on use of e-mental health interventions would have the same impact as trial procedures with ongoing assessments. Adherence and motivation to stick to the program might similarly be improved [23]. Yet, there is a current research gap with regard to investigating real-world usage from the perspective of health care professionals. General practitioners (GPs) play an especially important role as they are usually the first contact person for patients with depressive moods [24,25,26]. In addition, they hold an important gatekeeper function for further depression treatment options and specialist services [24,25]. The present study intends to investigate real-world data from GPs beyond trial participation. The preceding @ktiv trial was a cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) regarding the effectiveness of a self-managed e-mental health intervention for improving depressive mood. The cRCT showed the intervention to be effective in reducing depressive symptoms in mild-to-moderately severe depressed patients in the short and long term compared to a control group [14]. The results on secondary outcomes also showed a long-term improvement in self-efficacy and quality of life. Gaining a better understanding about real-world uptake from the GP perspective could offer an important contribution to existing research. In addition, the present study aims to provide practical guidance for better implementation of an unguided iCBT program in primary care. Therefore, the following research questions are explored in the present study:
(1)
What was the rate of real-world uptake of the e-mental health intervention in GP practices after the trial?
(2)
How do GPs evaluate the real-world benefits of the e-mental health intervention?
(3)
What are the barriers to real-world uptake for GPs?
(4)
What future implementation support is needed to overcome barriers from the GP perspective?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Sample

The present observational cross-sectional study presents quantitative data derived from a spin-off GP survey about 2.5 years subsequent to @ktiv trial. The study design and results of the preceding @ktiv trial have been described elsewhere [14,15,23,27]. Within the trial, N = 647 GP patients were recruited via N = 112 GP practices in central Germany. GPs received a letter when the online coaching platform was launched as freeware in Germany (1 January 2016). GPs did not know they were going to be surveyed 2.5 years after the trial as plans for the spin-off study did not yet exist at that time. No other reminders or incentives were given to implement the online coach into their regular treatment. Implementation rates, therefore, most likely reflect real-world conditions. The project was conducted in two steps. The first step involved a qualitative investigation (N = 3 GPs). Qualitative interviews were an important prerequisite to developing the GP questionnaire. In the second step, the quantitative GP survey followed. Hence, the remaining N = 109 physicians (N = 62 IG GPs; N = 47 GPs) were contacted and asked to participate. The subsequent GP survey was conducted from July 2018 to December 2018. Monetary incentives of EUR 80 were used to increase the response rate. Repeated reminders were mailed, following the Dillman model [28]. Overall, a sample of N = 68 GPs (IG GPs = 38, CG GPs = 30) were recruited. This corresponds to a response rate of 62.4%.

2.2. E-Mental Health Intervention

The @ktiv trial investigated the effectiveness of the German-language version of moodgym. Moodgym is a self-managed program based on theories and techniques of cognitive behavioral therapy. It consists of five interactive program modules that users can work through one after the other at the speed and intensity they choose. Interactive exercises, examples, and tests are integrated in each module. During the period of the @ktiv study, the German version of moodgym was only available to study participants in the intervention group. The German-language version has been available online free of charge since 2016. The further development of the program is guaranteed by ehub Health, a spin-off of the Australian National University (ANU), where moodgym was originally developed.

2.3. Assessment Instruments for Real-World Uptake and Implementation Experiences

The design of the survey instrument was based on the four core components of normalization process theory (NPT): coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring [29]. The results of the qualitative GP interviews were incorporated into the questionnaire, for example, by adding specific questions. The evaluation of the questionnaire was carried out by means of a pre-test with N = 3 persons, who determined comprehensibility and clarity of the questionnaire. Subsequently, appropriate adjustments and modifications were made. The present study refers to the following questions integrated within the questionnaire:

2.3.1. Socio-Demographic and Vocational Characteristics

Socio-demographic and vocational characteristics of the GP sample were assessed with regard to gender (female/male), age in years, specialist medical qualification (specialist in general medicine/general practitioner/specialist for internal medicine/other), additional qualifications in psychotherapy or psychosomatic medicine (yes/no).

2.3.2. Real-World Uptake of the E-Mental Health Intervention

GPs were asked, “Did you recommend moodgym to patients after trial end of the @ktiv study?” (yes/no). In addition, “How many patients have you recommended use the program so far?” (1–5 patients/6–10 patients/11–15 patients/16–20 patients/more than 20 patients).

2.3.3. Real-World Benefit from the GP Perspective

GPs with ongoing use of the e-mental health intervention were asked to evaluate the benefit of the e-mental health intervention with regard to the following issues: (1) ease of integration as an additional treatment option in GP care, (2) as an additional tool when treating patients with depressive symptoms, (3) as a helpful treatment element, (4) as providing basic theoretical knowledge about depressive illness, and (5) as a tool to strengthen the personal responsibility of the patient. Answering options were: exactly true/rather true/ rather not true/ not true at all).

2.3.4. Barriers for Real-World Uptake from the GP Perspective

GPs were asked to evaluate barriers to real-world uptake of the e-mental health intervention with the following question: “If you have not used moodgym, what were the reasons?” Multiple response options were possible: (Simply forgot/Lack of interest from patients/Negative feedback from patients/Concerns about whether patients will be able to manage the use on their own /Anonymity of the Internet/Doubts about the effectiveness of the program/Missing informational materials to hand out/Lack of time during a patient consultation/Lack of preparation time before a patient consultation/Stress due to high patient volume/Uncertain who the program is suitable for/Insufficient knowledge about the program/Privacy concerns).

2.3.5. Future Implementation Support Needed

GPs who continued to use the e-mental health intervention were asked the following questions to evaluate future implementation support needed to overcome barriers: (1) Which of the following measures do you think are necessary, from a GP perspective, in order to use moodgym in primary care? (An online training seminar for the program/A video of the various modules (5–10 min)/A video example of the doctor–patient conversation during a consultation/Informational materials (e.g., flyers) to pass on to patients/The availability of a telephone consultation hotline for physicians/Consultancy support by psychiatrists/psychotherapists via video conference); (2) How could the awareness for moodgym be raised among primary care physicians? (Treatment guideline (S3 guideline)/Publications in professional journals/Professional societies/Congresses/conferences/Training courses/Workshops/Internet/Health insurance companies/Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)/Informational material by postal mail); (3) Would you like to involve your practice staff in the use of moodgym in your practice? (yes/no).

2.4. Statistical Analyses

All statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 25.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive data are presented as means with standard deviations (SD) or absolute frequencies and percentages within the result section. Inferential statistics (Chi-square tests) were used to investigate differences between IG and CG GPs. All analyses are based on a level of significance with a p-value below 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Socio-Demographic and Vocational Characteristics of the Study Sample

Table 1 shows an overview of the socio-demographic and vocational characteristics of the participating GPs (in total, for IG and CG). A total of 66.2% of the GPs were female. The average age was 51.6 years (SD = 9.4). More than half of the sample (67.6%) stated that they had a specialist qualification for general medicine, and the next most common specialty was internal medicine (29.4%), with 69.1% stating that they had an additional qualification in psychotherapy or psychosomatic medicine. There were no significant differences between IG and CG GPs.

3.2. Real-World Uptake of the E-Mental Health Intervention

About half (n = 33, 48.5%) of the N = 68 GPs indicated that they carried on recommending moodgym (IG) or started recommending it (CG) under real-world conditions. That is, 44.7% (n = 17) of the IG GPs and 53.3% (n = 16) of the CG GPs recommended the program to patients. From N = 32 of the participating GPs, information was available with regard to the number of patients to whom the program was recommended to after the trial ended. Hence, 12.5% (n = 4) recommended the program to 1–5 patients, 40.6% (n = 13) recommended the program to 6–10 patients, 21.9% (n = 7) of the GPs recommended the program to 11–15 patients, and 15.6% (n = 5) of the GPs recommended the program to 16–20 patients. A total of 9.4% (n = 3) GPs recommended the program to more than 20 patients.

3.3. Real-World Benefit from GP’s Perspectives

Table 2 shows the evaluation of the real-world benefit from the GP perspective regarding the use of the e-mental health intervention after the trial end. The majority of GPs agreed that integration in GP care was easy (“rather agree” (62.5%) or “strongly agree” (31.5%)). Most GPs evaluated the intervention to be an additional tool they could use when treating patients with depressive symptoms (“exactly true” (34.4%), “rather true” (59.4%)) and found it helpful to be able to actively recommend the intervention (“exactly true” (40.6%), “rather true” (56.3%)). The majority of GPs agreed that the intervention provided basic knowledge about depression (“exactly true” (21.9%), “rather true” (62.5%)) and strengthened patient activation in the management of disease (“exactly true” (53.1%), “rather true” (40.6%)). IG GPs showed significantly stronger agreement than CG GPs with regard to ease of integration (p < 0.01) and strengthening patient activation in the management of disease (p < 0.05).

3.4. Barriers for Real-World Uptake from the GP Perspective

GPs who did not use of the e-mental health intervention beyond the trial were asked to describe their individual barriers to real-world uptake. Results are shown in Table 3. Most frequently, GPs endorsed the following barriers: simply forgot (85.2%, n = 23), followed by stress due to high patient volume (77.8%, n = 21), and not having informational hand-outs (76.9%, n = 20). No significant differences between IG or CG GPs were observed.

3.5. Future Implementation Support Needed

GPs with ongoing use of the e-mental health intervention were asked for their opinion on supporting measures for implementation. Results are shown in Table 4. Most frequently, informational materials (e.g., flyers) for passing on to the patients was mentioned here (96.9%, n = 31), followed by a 5 to 10 min video that leads the individual through program modules (80%, n = 24). More than two-thirds (63.3%, n = 19) stated that they would not consider consultancy support by psychiatrists/psychotherapists via video conference as necessary. No significant differences between IG or CG GPs were observed.
Table 5 shows the possibilities for increasing the level of awareness for GPs. A proportion of 90.0% indicated training courses and workshops as useful tools to raise the level of awareness among GPs. The same applies for congresses and conferences (86.2%). In total, 83.3% of the GPs mentioned publications in professional journals. Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) were mentioned less often (13.8%) by both IG and CG GPs. Nevertheless, CG GPs were significantly more open-minded with regard to this option.
GPs with ongoing use of the e-mental health intervention indicated, by a propor-tion of 77.4% (N = 24), that they would like to involve their practice staff with regard to the use of the e-mental health intervention. No significant differences in IG and CG patients were observed (Chi2 = 0.278; p = 0.598).

4. Discussion

The current study delivers data for the first time on real-world uptake of an e-mental health intervention for depressive symptoms from the perspective of primary care physicians. Participation in this study stemmed from participation in a previous study after which about half of the GPs reported to have carried on recommending the intervention (IG) or to have started recommending it (CG) under real-world conditions. Various real-world benefits were indicated by those GPs using the intervention under real-world conditions, such as an ease of integration, usefulness, patient satisfaction, ability to recommend an additional tool, and activating patient self-management of disease.
Still, study findings imply that a considerable number of GPs did not carry on (IG) or start (CG) using the e-mental health intervention beyond the trial. This is an important research finding about real-world uptake that has received little attention in other trials so far. The present study offers for the first time insight into the possible barriers from a GP point of view. The most relevant hindrances to the implementation of the e-mental health intervention were simply forgetting it and stress due to high patient volume. Patient information materials, such as flyers and posters, could be used in the waiting room to make interested patients aware of the possibility of e-mental health platforms and to talk to their GP about it. However, another prominent barrier was the lack of informational materials to hand out, which is an important hint for implementation strategies after trial. Developers of e-mental health interventions should be aware of this need. E-Mental health projects should plan to develop specific information material to achieve successful implementation at the end of a trial. On the other hand, intervention-related issues such as privacy concerns, doubts about the effectiveness of the program, or the anonymity of the Internet were rarely stated as a barrier. Similarly, patient-related issues such as negative feedback or lack of interest from patients did not seem to play a major role. Especially with the backdrop of the most recently published research that indicates that patient use of unguided e-mental health interventions may differ in real-world settings as compared to trial settings [19,20], health care professionals’ informed recommendations and active inquiries could make a valuable contribution here. Facilitating the use of unguided e-mental health interventions for health-care professionals, such as GPs, might have a favorable impact on uptake, adherence, and even effectiveness in patients with depressive symptoms. In addition, even relatively brief use of an e-mental health intervention might have a significant population impact by conveying the message that depression is a common health problem and that there are ways of treating it [19].
No significant differences in terms of real-world usage were shown between IG GPs and CG GPs. Similarly, both groups showed similar responses with regard to perceived benefits, barriers, and implementation support. Only minor differences were found, such as the control group GPs being more likely to favor social media as a source of information to increase the level of awareness for e-mental health interventions. The present findings indicate that the allocation group of recruiting health-care professionals in cRCTs has no specific influence on the recommendation behavior after the trial. Future studies are needed to verify these results.
Interestingly, even though other online coaches for depression were available in Germany after @ktiv trial ended, most of the GPs in the spin-off survey (94%) stated that they were not aware of any other programs in this field. Consequently, GPs were not using any alternative depression online coach within these 2.5 years. This finding also implies that there might be still a lack of information about e-mental health treatment options with regard to primary care physicians. In Germany, the legal framework for the prescription of digital health applications has just recently been established with the Digitale-Versorgungs-Gesetz (DVG), which came into force in 2019 [30]. Since 2020, costs for digital health applications listed in a so-called DiGA directory can be billed directly to health insurance companies. Still, measures need to be taken to explain the benefits and advantages of e-mental health interventions and to strengthen knowledge about their use in patient care. The present study makes some suggestions with regard to GPs. The heterogeneity of results in the spin-off survey points toward the application of broadly diversified measures, since one measure may not fit all. Accordingly, the present study shows that the majority of GPs favors certain implementation aids (e.g., information material 96.9%, application videos 80.0%). Consequently, future implementation support should include appealing informational materials and explainer videos. Other implementation aids are favored less often, but still by a considerable number of GPs (e.g., online training seminars 50.0%). The results suggest that there might be the need to offer a range of implementation support measures, leaving it to the health care professional to choose an appropriate measure.
In the present study, the majority of GPs affirmed the listed strategies to increase the level of awareness. The dissemination of information should be considered via workshops, conferences, and professional journals. In addition, information via treatment guidelines and professional societies seem to play an important role. Another strategy could involve the distribution of information material via Internet, by postal mail, or via health insurance companies. Contact via social media was less appealing for GPs.
Implementation studies that develop and evaluate the effectiveness of different implementation measures are urgently needed. Future studies should not only focus on potential users of the e-mental health intervention, but also on health care professionals and their staffs. Patients and health care professionals should be involved in the development of implementation strategies. Mixed-method studies are therefore strongly recommended. Longitudinal observational studies could be useful to track the implementation success of the developed measures. In addition, measuring an increase in the number of users of e-mental health interventions could also be an appropriate way to measure the effect of implementation measures.
In addition, the treatment preferences of patients should be considered by their treating physicians [31,32]. Moreover, a lack of teaching about how to use e-mental health interventions has been identified in previous research as an important barrier for successful implementation [33,34,35]. Incorporating e-mental health curricula within the academic training of health-care professionals, such as GPs, psychiatrists, or psychotherapists could be a valuable solution.
There are several strengths of the study. The present study closes a research gap by presenting data on real-world uptake of an e-health intervention for improving depressing symptoms in patient care beyond the trial. For the first time, barriers of real-world uptake could be assessed from the GP perspective. In contrast to previous studies focusing on user uptake only, the present work refers to uptake from the perspective of health care professionals, namely GPs, which has never before been investigated. In addition, the assessment instrument used in the quantitative part of the study was adapted to important issues indicated by N = 3 qualitative GP interviews. Therefore, significant topics for this target group could assumingly be captured. However, the present study is not without limitations. Data refer to a single trial and to a sole intervention. Monetary incentives were used to increase return rates of the survey. For this reason, a possible response bias cannot completely be ruled out and responses may not fully reflect real-world usage. Generalizability of the results may therefore be limited. More research data are needed, and future studies should take the investigation of real-world usage data from the health care professionals’ perspective into account. Furthermore, the response rate of GPs participating in the add-on survey after trial was only 62.4%. Low response rates in physician surveys are a common problem in research and often due to time constraints [36]. Reasons for non-participation could not be assessed in the present study. Percentages of real-world uptake within patient care should therefore be interpreted with caution and might be lower than reported. In addition, no validated instrument was available to assess real-world uptake, real-world benefits, barriers, and implementation support from the GP’s perspective. For this reason, the study was following a sequential qualitative-quantitative research design, also called exploratory sequential mixed-methods design [37]. Accordingly, qualitative GP interviews were used to develop survey variables and survey items for the quantitative study part. In addition, a pretest (N = 3) was used to identify and to modify any ambiguities. Nevertheless, the validation of this survey instrument should be a next step to enable other studies to collect valid data on real-world usage.

5. Conclusions

Unguided iCBT interventions have been proven to effectively improve depressive symptoms. Especially with regard to mild forms of depression or subthreshold conditions, these interventions could be a useful and economical tool as add-on to patient care. GPs do not only hold a gate-keeper function with regard to specialist service, moreover, patients trust their opinion and recommendations. Thus, GPs’ active support of unguided e-mental health interventions may enhance uptake, adherence and due to close dose-response relationships even significantly impact their effectiveness. Measures should be taken to make it easier for health care professionals to use an intervention after the trial and to integrate it into everyday practice. Offering appealing informational materials and explainer videos would help to encourage participation. More research is needed to investigate real-world uptake and implementation approaches for e-mental health interventions from both patients’ and professionals’ perspectives.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L. (Margrit Löbner) and S.G.R.-H.; methodology, M.L. (Margrit Löbner) and S.G.R.-H.; formal analysis, M.L. (Margrit Löbner); investigation, M.L. (Margrit Löbner) and S.G.R.-H.; data curation, M.L. (Margrit Löbner); writing—original draft preparation, M.L. (Margrit Löbner ); writing—review and editing, J.S., M.L. (Melanie Luppa), M.B., A.M.-T., and S.G.R.-H.; supervision, S.G.R.-H.; project administration, M.L. (Margrit Löbner) and S.G.R.-H.; funding acquisition, M.L. (Margrit Löbner) and S.G.R.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was partly funded by the Federal Association of AOK (Project number BGAAF-0608) and published in affiliation with the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (AgE-health study, grant number: 01GY1613 and the @ktivPLUS study, grant number: 01GY2108) and the Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee (@ktiv_rollout, grant number: 01VSF19031).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Leipzig University (protocol code 032/18-ek).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due ethical restrictions and participant confidentiality but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Aggregated data are provided in the paper’s tables.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank all participating GPs for their good collaboration.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. World Health Organization. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43942 (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  2. Stein, J.; Röhr, S.; Luck, T.; Löbner, M.; Riedel-Heller, S.G. Indikationen und Evidenz von international entwickelten Online-Coaches zur Intervention bei psychischen Erkrankungen—Ein Meta-Review. Psychiatr. Prax. 2018, 45, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Arnberg, F.K.; Linton, S.J.; Hultcrantz, M.; Heintz, E.; Jonsson, U. Internet-delivered psychological treatments for mood and anxiety disorders: A systematic review of their efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e98118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Andrews, G.; Cuijpers, P.; Craske, M.G.; McEvoy, P.; Titov, N. Computer therapy for the anxiety and depressive disorders is effective, acceptable and practical health care. A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e13196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Andrews, G.; Basu, A.; Cuijpers, P.; Craske, M.; McEvoy, P.; English, C.; Newby, J. Computer therapy for the anxiety and depression disorders is effective, acceptable and practical health care. An updated meta-analysis. J. Anxiety Disord. 2018, 55, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Josephine, K.; Josefine, L.; Philipp, D.; David, E.; Harald, B. Internet- and mobile-based depression interventions for people with diagnosed depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 2017, 223, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Foroushani, P.S.; Schneider, J.; Assareh, N. Meta-review of the effectiveness of computerised CBT in treating depression. BMC Psychiatry 2011, 11, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Lal, S. E-mental health: Promising advancements in policy, research, and practice. Healthc. Manag. Forum 2019, 32, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Lal, S.; Adair, C.E. E-mental health: A rapid review of the literature. Psychiatr. Serv. 2014, 65, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Timakum, T.; Xie, Q.; Song, M. Analysis of E-mental health research: Mapping the relationship between information technology and mental healthcare. BMC Psychiatry 2022, 22, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zwerenz, R.; Beutel, M.E. Online interventions for the treatment of mental disorders and complaints: What are the current approaches, and how effective are they. Arb. Soz. Umw. 2017, 52, 452–460. [Google Scholar]
  12. Baumeister, H.; Reichler, L.; Munzinger, M.; Lin, J. The impact of guidance on Internet-based mental health interventions—A systematic review. Internet Interv. 2014, 1, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Karyotaki, E.; Riper, H.; Twisk, J.; Hoogendoorn, A.; Kleiboer, A.; Mira, A.; Mackinnon, A.; Meyer, B.; Botella, C.; Littlewood, E.; et al. Efficacy of Self-guided Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in the Treatment of Depressive Symptoms. A Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data. JAMA Psychiatry 2017, 74, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Löbner, M.; Pabst, A.; Stein, J.; Dorow, M.; Matschinger, H.; Luppa, M.; Maroß, A.; Kersting, A.; König, H.-H.; Riedel-Heller, S.G. Computerized cognitive behavior therapy for patients with mild to moderately severe depression in primary care. A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (@ktiv). J. Affect. Disord. 2018, 238, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pabst, A.; Löbner, M.; Stein, J.; Luppa, M.; Kersting, A.; König, H.-H.; Riedel-Heller, S.G. Internet-Based Cognitive Behavior Therapy Only for the Young? A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Depression Treatment. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Schröder, J.; Werkle, N.; Cludius, B.; Jelinek, L.; Moritz, S.; Westermann, S. Unguided Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Depress. Anxiety 2020, 37, 1208–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Karyotaki, E.; Efthimiou, O.; Miguel, C.; Bermpohl, F.M.G.; Furukawa, T.A.; Cuijpers, P.; Individual Patient Data Meta-Analyses for Depression (IPDMA-DE) Collaboration; Riper, H.; Patel, V.; Mira, A.; et al. 2021 Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Network Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 2020, 78, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. DGPPN; BÄK; KBV; AWMF (Hrsg). Leitliniengruppe Unipolare Depression. In S3-Leitlinie/Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinie Unipolare Depression—Langfassung, 2nd ed.; Version 5; DGPPN: Berlin, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fleming, T.; Bavin, L.; Lucassen, M.; Stasiak, K.; Hopkins, S.; Merry, S. Beyond the Trial: Systematic Review of Real-World Uptake and Engagement with Digital Self-Help Interventions for Depression, Low Mood, or Anxiety. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Baumel, A.; Edan, S.; Kane, J.M. Is there a trial bias impacting user engagement with unguided e-mental health interventions? A systematic comparison of published reports and real-world usage of the same programs. Transl. Behav. Med. 2019, 9, 1020–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Barak, A.; Grohol, J.M. Current and Future Trends in Internet-Supported Mental Health Interventions. J. Technol. Hum. Serv. 2011, 29, 155–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Donker, T.; Blankers, M.; Hedman-Lagerlöf, E.; Ljótsson, B.; Petrie, K.; Christensen, H. Economic evaluations of Internet interventions for mental health: A systematic review. Psychol. Med. 2015, 45, 3357–3376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Löbner, M.; Dorow, M.; Pabst, A.; Stein, J.; Kersting, A.; Luppa, M.; König, H.-H.; Riedel-Heller, S. Online-Selbstmanagement bei Depressionen—Die Beziehung von Dosis und Wirksamkeit im hausärztlichen Versorgungssetting. [Online self-management of depression—Dose-response-relationship within primary care setting]. Fortschr. Neurol. Psychiatr. 2019, 87, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Torge, M.; Petersen, J.J.; Gensichen, J.; Planz-Kuhlendahl, S. Depressionsbehandlung in der Hausarztpraxis. Psychiatr. Prax. 2010, 37, 366–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Sikorski, C.; Luppa, M.; König, H.-H.; van den Bussche, H.; Riedel-Heller, S.G. Does GP training in depression care affect patient outcome?—A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2012, 12, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Magaard, J.L.; Seeralan, T.; De, A.; Schulz, H.; Brütt, A.L. Depressionsbehandlung aus Betroffenensicht—Eine qualitative Analyse der subjektiven Behandlungsvorstellungen über Psychotherapie und hausärztliche Versorgung von Menschen mit Depressionen. Psychiatr. Prax. 2019, 46, 268–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Weitzel, E.; Pabst, A.; Luppa, M.; Kersting, A.; König, H.; Löbner, M.; Riedel-Heller, S. Are self-managed online interventions for depression effective in improving behavioral activation? A secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 308, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Dillman, D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method—2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  29. May, C.; Finch, T. Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalization Process Theory. Sociology 2009, 43, 535–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Weitzel, E.C.; Quittschalle, J.; Welzel, F.D.; Löbner, M.; Hauth, I.; Riedel-Heller, S.G. E-Mental-Health und digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen in Deutschland. Der Nervenarzt 2021, 92, 1121–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Backhaus, L.; Pabst, A.; Löbner, M.; Riedel-Heller, S.; Luppa, M. Behandlungspräferenzen depressiver Allgemeinarztpatienten. Psychiatr. Prax. 2020, 47, 39–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dorow, M.; Löbner, M.; Pabst, A.; Stein, J.; Riedel-Heller, S.G. Preferences for Depression Treatment Including Internet-Based Interventions: Results from a Large Sample of Primary Care Patients. Front. Psychiatry 2018, 9, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Marshall, J.M.; Dunstan, D.A.; Bartik, W. Clinical or gimmickal: The use and effectiveness of mobile mental health apps for treating anxiety and depression. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 2020, 54, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kim, J.W.; Torous, J.; Chan, S.; Gipson, S.Y.-M.T. Developing a Digitally Informed Curriculum in Psychiatry Education and Clinical Practice. Acad. Psychiatry 2018, 42, 782–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Torous, J.; Chan, S.; Luo, J.; Boland, R.; Hilty, D. Clinical Informatics in Psychiatric Training: Preparing Today’s Trainees for the Already Present Future. Acad. Psychiatry 2018, 42, 694–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kellerman, S. Physician response to surveys A review of the literature. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2001, 20, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Creswell, J.W.; Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018; 544p. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Socio-demographic and vocational characteristics.
Table 1. Socio-demographic and vocational characteristics.
Variables Total
(n = 68)		IG
(n = 38)		CG
(n = 30)		Chi2/tp
gender, n (%)female45 (66.2)26 (68.4)19 (63.3)0.1940.660
male23 (33.8)12 (31.6)11 (36.7)
age in years, mean (SD) 51.6 (9.4)51.7 (9.6)51.4 (9,3)0.1600.874
specialist medical
qualification, n (%) *		specialist in general medicine46 (67.6)24 (63.2)22 (73.3)0.7930.373
general practitioner5 (7.4)2 (5.3)3 (10.0)0.5520.457
specialist for internal medicine20 (29.4)12 (31.6)8 (26.7)0.1950.659
other9 (13.2)3 (7.9)6 (20.0)2.1390.144
additional qualifications
in psychotherapy or
psychosomatic medicine, n (%)		yes47 (69.1)29 (76.3)18 (60.0)2.0910.148
no21 (30.9)9 (23.7)12 (40.0)
Notes. IG = intervention group; CG = control group; SD = standard deviation; * multiple answers were possible.
Table
Table 2. Real-world benefit from the GP perspective 1.
Table 2. Real-world benefit from the GP perspective 1.
Variables All GPs
n (%)		IG GPs
n (%)		CG GPs
n (%)		Chi2p
Moodgym can be easily integrated as an additional treatment option in GP care.strongly agree10 (31.3)9 (56.3)1 (6.3)10.2000.006 **
rather agree20 (62.5)7 (43.8)13 (81.3)
rather disagree2 (6.3)0 (0)2 (12.5)
strongly disagree0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Moodgym offers me an additional “tool” that I can use when treating patients with depressive symptoms.exactly true11 (34.4)8 (50.0)3 (18.8)3.5890.166
rather true19 (59.4)7 (43.8)12 (75.0)
rather not true2 (6.3)1 (6.3)1 (6.3)
not true at all0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
I find it helpful to be able to actively recommend moodgym as a treatment element.exactly true13 (40.6)9 (56.3)4 (25.0)3.8120.149
rather true18 (56.3)7 (43.8)11 (68.8)
rather not true1 (3.1)0 (0)1 (6.3)
not true at all0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
The use of moodgym enables me to provide my patients with basic theoretical knowledge about their depressive illness.exactly true7 (21.9)5 (31.3)2 (12.5)2.4860.478
rather true20 (62.5)9 (56.3)11 (68.8)
rather not true4 (12.5)2 (12.5)2 (12.5)
not true at all1 (3.1)0 (0)1 (6.3)
Moodgym strengthens the personal responsibility of the patient to
actively contribute to the management of his depressive symptoms.		exactly true17 (53.1)12 (75.0)5 (31.3)6.8050.033 *
rather true13 (40.6)4 (25.0)9 (56.3)
rather not true2 (6.3)0 (0)2 (12.5)
not true at all0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Notes. 1 Sample size refers to the subsample of N = 33 GPs who reported real-world uptake of the e-mental health intervention. Information on real-world benefit was only available from N = 32 GPs. IG = Intervention group; CG = control group; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 3. Barriers for real-world uptake from GP’s perspectives 1.
Table 3. Barriers for real-world uptake from GP’s perspectives 1.
Variables All GPs
n (%)		IG GPs
n (%)		CG GPs
n (%)		Chi2p
Simply forgot (n = 27)yes23 (85.2)10 (76.9)13 (92.9)1.3560.244
no4 (14.8)3 (23.1)1 (7.1)
Lack of interest from patients (n = 26)yes10 (38.5)5 (41.7)5 (35.7)0.0970.756
no16 (61.5)7 (58.3)9 (64.3)
Negative feedback from patients (n = 25)yes2 (8.0)2 (16.7)0 (0)2.3550.125
no23 (92.0)10 (83.3)13 (100)
Concerns about whether patients will be able to manage the use on their own (n = 26)yes9 (34.6)6 (46.2)3 (23.1)1.5290.216
no17 (65.4)7 (53.8)10 (76.9)
Anonymity of the Internet (n = 26)yes2 (7.7)1 (7.7)1 (7.7)0.0001.000
no24 (92.3)12 (92.3)12 (92.3)
Doubts about the effectiveness of the program (n = 25)yes3 (12.0)1 (8.3)2 (15.4)0.2940.588
no22 (88.0)11 (91.7)11 (84.6)
Missing informational material to hand out (n = 26)yes20 (76.9)8 (66.7)12 (85.7)1.3210.250
no6 (23.1)4 (33.3)2 (14.3)
Lack of time during a patient consultation (n = 25)yes12 (48.0)6 (50.0)6 (46.2)0.0370.848
no13 (52.0)6 (50.0)7 (53.8)
Lack of preparation time before patient consultation (n = 25)yes9 (36.0)3 (25.0)6 (46.2)1.2120.271
no16 (64.0)9 (75.0)7 (53.8)
Stress due to high patient volume (n = 27)yes21 (77.8)9 (69.2)12 (85.7)1.0600.303
no6 (22.2)4 (30.8)2 (14.3)
Uncertain who the program is suitable for (n = 27)yes10 (37.0)5 (38.5)5 (35.7)0.0220.883
no17 (63.0)8 (61.5)9 (64.3)
Insufficient knowledge about the program (n = 26)yes16 (61.5)5 (41.7)11 (78.6)3.7180.054
no10 (38.5)7 (58.3)3 (21.4)
Privacy concerns (n = 25)yes4 (16.0)2 (16.7)2 (15.4)0.0080.930
no21 (84.0)10 (83.3)11 (84.6)
Notes. 1 Sample size refers to the subsample of N = 35 GPs who reported no use of the e-mental health intervention beyond trial. IG = intervention group; CG = control group.
Table
Table 4. Necessary implementation measures 1.
Table 4. Necessary implementation measures 1.
Variables All GPs
n (%)		IG GPs
n (%)		CG GPs
n (%)		Chi2p
Online training seminar for the program (n = 29)yes14 (48,3)7 (50.0)7 (46.7)0.0320.858
no15 (51.7)7 (50.0)8 (53.3)
Video that demonstrates the modules (5–10 min) (n = 30)yes24 (80.0)12 (80.0)12 (80.0)0.0001.000
no6 (20.0)3 (20.0)3 (20.0)
Video example of the doctor–patient conversation during a consultation (n = 29)yes12 (41.4)7 (46.7)5 (35.7)0.3580.550
no17 (58.6)8 (53.3)9 (64.3)
Informational materials (e.g., flyers) to pass on to the patients (n = 32)yes31 (96.9)16 (100)15 (93.8)1.0320.310
no1 (3.1)0 (0)1 (6.3)
Availability of a telephone consultation hotline for physicians (n = 30)yes14 (46.7)6 (40.0)8 (53.3)0.5360.464
no16 (53.3)9 (60.0)7 (46.7)
Consultancy support by psychiatrists/psychotherapists via video conference (n = 30)yes11 (36.7)8 (50.0)3 (21.4)2.6250.105
no19 (63.3)8 (50.0)11 (78.6)
Notes. 1 Sample size refers to the subsample of N = 33 GPs, who reported real-world uptake of the e-mental health intervention. IG = intervention group; CG = control group.
Table
Table 5. Possibilities to increase the level of awareness 1.
Table 5. Possibilities to increase the level of awareness 1.
Variables All GPs
n (%)		IG GPs
n (%)		CG GPs
n (%)		Chi2p
Treatment guideline (S3 guideline) (n = 30)yes23 (76.7)13 (81.3)10 (71.4)0.4030.526
no7 (23.3)3 (18.8)4 (28.6)
Publications in professional journals (n = 30)yes25 (83.3)12 (75.0)13 (92.9)1.7140.190
no5 (16.7)4 (25.0)1 (7.1)
Professional societies (n = 28)yes19 (67.9)11 (68.8)8 (66.7)0.0140.907
no9 (32.1)5 (31.3)4 (33.3)
Congresses/conferences (n = 29)yes25 (86.2)15 (93.8)10 (76.9)1.7080.191
no4 (13.8)1 (6.3)3 (23.1)
Training courses/workshops (n = 30)yes27 (90.0)14 (87.5)13 (92.9)0.2380.626
no3 (10.0)2 (12.5)1 (7.1)
Internet (n = 27)yes15 (55.6)9 (64.3)6 (46.2)0.8980.343
no12 (44.4)5 (35.7)7 (53.8)
Health insurance companies (n = 30)yes22 (73.3)12 (75.0)10 (71.4)0.0490.825
no8 (26.7)4 (25.0)4 (28.6)
Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) (n = 29)yes4 (13.8)0 (0)4 (30.8)5.7110.017 *
no25 (86.2)16 (100)9 (69.2)
Informational material by postal mail (n = 30)yes19 (63.3)12 (75.0)7 (50.0)2.0100.156
no11 (36.7)4 (25.0)7 (50.0)
Notes. 1 Sample size refers to the subsample of N = 33 GPs who reported real-world uptake of the E-mental health intervention. IG = intervention group; CG = control group; * p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Löbner, M.; Stein, J.; Luppa, M.; Bleckwenn, M.; Mehnert-Theuerkauf, A.; Riedel-Heller, S.G. What Comes after the Trial? An Observational Study of the Real-World Uptake of an E-Mental Health Intervention by General Practitioners to Reduce Depressive Symptoms in Their Patients. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6203. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19106203

AMA Style

Löbner M, Stein J, Luppa M, Bleckwenn M, Mehnert-Theuerkauf A, Riedel-Heller SG. What Comes after the Trial? An Observational Study of the Real-World Uptake of an E-Mental Health Intervention by General Practitioners to Reduce Depressive Symptoms in Their Patients. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(10):6203. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19106203

Chicago/Turabian Style

Löbner, Margrit, Janine Stein, Melanie Luppa, Markus Bleckwenn, Anja Mehnert-Theuerkauf, and Steffi G. Riedel-Heller. 2022. "What Comes after the Trial? An Observational Study of the Real-World Uptake of an E-Mental Health Intervention by General Practitioners to Reduce Depressive Symptoms in Their Patients" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 10: 6203. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19106203

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop