scholarly journals The Association Between App-Administered Depression Assessments and Suicidal Ideation in User Comments: Retrospective Observational Study

10.2196/18392 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e18392
Author(s):  
Shelly DeForte ◽  
Yungui Huang ◽  
Tran Bourgeois ◽  
Syed-Amad Hussain ◽  
Simon Lin
Keyword(s):  
Suicidal Ideation ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Clinical Diagnostics ◽  
Retrospective Observational Study ◽  
Depression Symptoms ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Potential Harm ◽  
User Comments ◽  
Depression Assessment

Background Many people use apps to help understand and manage their depression symptoms. App-administered questionnaires for the symptoms of depression, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, are easy to score and implement in an app, but may not be accompanied by essential resources and access needed to provide proper support and avoid potential harm. Objective Our primary goal was to evaluate the differences in risks and helpfulness associated with using an app to self-diagnose depression, comparing assessment-only apps with multifeatured apps. We also investigated whether, what, and how additional app features may mitigate potential risks. Methods In this retrospective observational study, we identified apps in the Google Play store that provided a depression assessment as a feature and had at least five user comments. We separated apps into two categories based on those having only a depression assessment versus those that offered additional supportive features. We conducted theoretical thematic analyses over the user reviews, with thematic coding indicating the helpfulness of the app, the presence of suicidal ideation, and how and why the apps were used. We compared the results across the two categories of apps and analyzed the differences using chi-square statistical tests. Results We evaluated 6 apps; 3 provided only a depression assessment (assessment only), and 3 provided features in addition to self-assessment (multifeatured). User comments for assessment-only apps indicated significantly more suicidal ideation or self-harm (n=31, 9.4%) compared to comments for multifeatured apps (n=48, 2.3%; X21=43.88, P<.001). Users of multifeatured apps were over three times more likely than assessment-only app users to comment in favor of the app’s helpfulness, likely due to features like mood tracking, journaling, and informational resources (n=56, 17% vs n=1223, 59% respectively; X21=200.36, P<.001). The number of users under the age of 18 years was significantly higher among assessment-only app users (n=40, 12%) than multifeatured app users (n=9, 0.04%; X21=189.09, P<.001). Conclusions Apps that diagnose depression by self-assessment without context or other supportive features are more likely to be used by those under 18 years of age and more likely to be associated with increased user distress and potential harm. Depression self-assessments in apps should be implemented with caution and accompanied by evidence-based capabilities that establish proper context, increase self-empowerment, and encourage users to seek clinical diagnostics and outside help.

scholarly journals The Association Between App-Administered Depression Assessments and Suicidal Ideation in User Comments: Retrospective Observational Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelly DeForte ◽  
Yungui Huang ◽  
Tran Bourgeois ◽  
Syed-Amad Hussain ◽  
Simon Lin
Keyword(s):  
Suicidal Ideation ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Clinical Diagnostics ◽  
Retrospective Observational Study ◽  
Depression Symptoms ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Potential Harm ◽  
User Comments ◽  
Depression Assessment

BACKGROUND Many people use apps to help understand and manage their depression symptoms. App-administered questionnaires for the symptoms of depression, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, are easy to score and implement in an app, but may not be accompanied by essential resources and access needed to provide proper support and avoid potential harm. OBJECTIVE Our primary goal was to evaluate the differences in risks and helpfulness associated with using an app to self-diagnose depression, comparing assessment-only apps with multifeatured apps. We also investigated whether, what, and how additional app features may mitigate potential risks. METHODS In this retrospective observational study, we identified apps in the Google Play store that provided a depression assessment as a feature and had at least five user comments. We separated apps into two categories based on those having only a depression assessment versus those that offered additional supportive features. We conducted theoretical thematic analyses over the user reviews, with thematic coding indicating the helpfulness of the app, the presence of suicidal ideation, and how and why the apps were used. We compared the results across the two categories of apps and analyzed the differences using chi-square statistical tests. RESULTS We evaluated 6 apps; 3 provided only a depression assessment (assessment only), and 3 provided features in addition to self-assessment (multifeatured). User comments for assessment-only apps indicated significantly more suicidal ideation or self-harm (n=31, 9.4%) compared to comments for multifeatured apps (n=48, 2.3%; <i>X</i><sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub>=43.88, <i>P</i>&lt;.001). Users of multifeatured apps were over three times more likely than assessment-only app users to comment in favor of the app’s helpfulness, likely due to features like mood tracking, journaling, and informational resources (n=56, 17% vs n=1223, 59% respectively; <i>X</i><sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub>=200.36, <i>P</i>&lt;.001). The number of users under the age of 18 years was significantly higher among assessment-only app users (n=40, 12%) than multifeatured app users (n=9, 0.04%; <i>X</i><sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub>=189.09, <i>P</i>&lt;.001). CONCLUSIONS Apps that diagnose depression by self-assessment without context or other supportive features are more likely to be used by those under 18 years of age and more likely to be associated with increased user distress and potential harm. Depression self-assessments in apps should be implemented with caution and accompanied by evidence-based capabilities that establish proper context, increase self-empowerment, and encourage users to seek clinical diagnostics and outside help. CLINICALTRIAL

scholarly journals Cannabidiol use and effectiveness: real-world evidence from a Canadian medical cannabis clinic

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucile Rapin ◽  
Rihab Gamaoun ◽  
Cynthia El Hage ◽  
Maria Fernanda Arboleda ◽  
Erin Prosk
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Real World ◽  
Retrospective Observational Study ◽  
Depression Symptoms ◽  
Medical Cannabis ◽  
Specific Symptom ◽  
Pain Anxiety ◽  
Real World Evidence ◽  
Anxiety Depression ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Cannabidiol (CBD) is a primary component in the cannabis plant; however, in recent years, interest in CBD treatments has outpaced scientific research and regulatory advancement resulting in a confusing landscape of misinformation and unsubstantiated health claims. Within the limited results from randomized controlled trials, and lack of trust in product quality and known clinical guidelines and dosages, real-world evidence (RWE) from countries with robust regulatory frameworks may fill a critical need for patients and healthcare professionals. Despite growing evidence and interest, no real-world data (RWD) studies have yet investigated patients’ reports of CBD impact on symptom control in the common expression of pain, anxiety, depression, and poor wellbeing. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of CBD-rich treatment on symptom burden, as measured with a specific symptom assessment scale (ESAS-r). Methods This retrospective observational study examined pain, anxiety, depression symptoms, and wellbeing in 279 participants over 18 years old, prescribed with CBD-rich treatment at a network of clinics dedicated to medical cannabis in Quebec, Canada. Data were collected at baseline, 3 (FUP1), and 6 (FUP2) month after treatment initiation. Groups were formed based on symptom severity (mild vs moderate/severe) and based on changes to treatment plan at FUP1 (CBD vs THC:CBD). Two-way mixed ANOVAs were used to assess ESAS-r scores differences between groups and between visits. Results All average ESAS-r scores decreased between baseline and FUP1 (all ps < 0.003). The addition of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) during the first follow-up had no effect on symptom changes. Patients with moderate/severe symptoms experienced important improvement at FUP1 (all ps < 0.001), whereas scores on pain, anxiety, and wellbeing of those with mild symptoms actually increased. Differences in ESAS-r scores between FUP1 and FUP2 were not statistically different. Conclusion This retrospective observational study suggests CBD-rich treatment has a beneficial impact on pain, anxiety, and depression symptoms as well as overall wellbeing only for patients with moderate to severe symptoms; however, no observed effect on mild symptoms. The results of this study contribute to address the myths and misinformation about CBD treatment and demand further investigation.

Hemmkörperentwicklung bei Hämophilie-Patienten nach Präparate wechsel

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (S 01) ◽  
pp. S39-S42 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kocher ◽  
G. Asmelash ◽  
V. Makki ◽  
S. Müller ◽  
S. Krekeler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Factor ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Retrospective Observational Study ◽  
Frequent Change ◽  
Patient Age ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Patient Âgé ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Observation Period

SummaryThe retrospective observational study surveys the relationship between development of inhibitors in the treatment of haemophilia patients and risk factors such as changing FVIII products. A total of 119 patients were included in this study, 198 changes of FVIII products were evaluated. Results: During the observation period of 12 months none of the patients developed an inhibitor, which was temporally associated with a change of FVIII products. A frequent change of FVIII products didn’t lead to an increase in inhibitor risk. The change between plasmatic and recombinant preparations could not be confirmed as a risk factor. Furthermore, no correlation between treatment regimens, severity, patient age and comorbidities of the patients could be found.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document