Right choice, right time
Evaluation of an online decision aid for youth depression
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19507788 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Magenta B Simmons (0000-0002-8544-8917, Orygen The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, corresponding author), Aurora Elmes (Orygen The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health), Joanne E McKenzie (0000-0003-3534-1641, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Clayton Vic. Australia), Lyndal Trevena (0000-0003-1419-1832, School of Public Health The University of Sydney Sydney NSW Australia), Hetrick (0000-0003-2532-0142, The University of Melbourne), Sarah E Hetrick (Orygen The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 714-723 |
| Publication date | 2017-08-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health Expectations (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/hex.12510 |
| PMID | 27748004 |
| OpenAlex | W2533679420 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 38 |
BACKGROUND: Appropriate treatment for youth depression is an important public health priority. Shared decision making has been recommended, yet no decision aids exist to facilitate this. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to evaluate an online decision aid for youth depression. DESIGN: An uncontrolled cohort study with pre-decision, immediately post-decision and follow-up measurements. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Young people (n=66) aged 12-25 years with mild, mild-moderate or moderate-severe depression were recruited from two enhanced primary care services. INTERVENTION: Online decision aid with evidence communication, preference elicitation and decision support components. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were ability to make a decision; whether the decision was in line with clinical practice guidelines, personal preferences and values; decisional conflict; perceived involvement; satisfaction with decision; adherence; and depression scores at follow-up. RESULTS: After using the decision aid, clients were more likely to make a decision in line with guideline recommendations (93% vs 70%; P=.004), were more able to make a decision (97% vs 79%; P=.022), had significantly reduced decisional conflict (17.8 points lower (95% CI: 13.3-22.9 points lower) on the Decisional Conflict Scale (range 0-100)) and felt involved and satisfied with their decision. At follow-up, clients had significantly reduced depression symptoms (2.7 points lower (95% CI: 1.3-4.0 points lower) on the Patient Health Questionnaire nine-item scale (range 0-27)) and were adherent to 88% (95% CI: 82%-94%) of treatment courses. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid for youth depression can help ensure evidence-based, client-centred care, promoting collaboration in this often difficult to engage population
Alternative medicine · Decision aids · Guideline · Preference · Clinical Psychology · Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Psychology
Global burden of disease in young people aged 10–24 years
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
From best evidence to best practice
Validation of a Decisional Conflict Scale
Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids
Depression in adolescence
The PHQ-9
Preliminary validation of the Satisfaction With Decision scale with depressed primary care patients
Information and decision‐making needs among people with mental disorders
Primary Care Patients’ Involvement in Decision-Making Is Associated With Improvement in Depression
Developing a Framework to Support Shared Decision Making for Youth Mental Health Medication Treatment
| Citations per year | 0.6 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2021 - 2023 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |