Suchergebnisse

Objective: During the COVID pandemic, government authorities worldwide have tried to limit the spread of the virus. Sweden's distinctive feature was the use of voluntary public health recommendations. Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of this strategy. Based on data collected in the spring of 2020, this study explored associations between compliance with recommendations and observed symptoms of contagion in others, using self-report data from university students. Results: Compliance with recommendations ranged between 69.7 and 95.7 percent. Observations of moderate symptoms of contagion in "Someone else I have had contact with" and "Another person" were markedly associated with reported self-quarantine, which is the most restrictive recommendation, complied with by 81.2% of participants. Uncertainty regarding the incidence and severity of contagion in cohabitants was markedly associated with the recommendation to avoid public transportation, a recommendation being followed by 69.7%. It is concluded that students largely followed the voluntary recommendations implemented in Sweden, suggesting that coercive measures were not necessary. Compliance with recommendations were associated with the symptoms students saw in others, and with the perceived risk of contagion in the student's immediate vicinity. It is recommended that voluntary recommendations should stress personal relevance, and that close relatives are at risk.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID pandemic, government authorities worldwide have tried to limit the spread of the virus. Sweden's distinctive feature was the use of voluntary public health recommendations. Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of this strategy. Based on data collected in the spring of 2020, this study explored associations between compliance with recommendations and observed symptoms of contagion in others, using self-report data from university students. RESULTS: Compliance with recommendations ranged between 69.7 and 95.7 percent. Observations of moderate symptoms of contagion in "Someone else I have had contact with" and "Another person" were markedly associated with reported self-quarantine, which is the most restrictive recommendation, complied with by 81.2% of participants. Uncertainty regarding the incidence and severity of contagion in cohabitants was markedly associated with the recommendation to avoid public transportation, a recommendation being followed by 69.7%. It is concluded that students largely followed the voluntary recommendations implemented in Sweden, suggesting that coercive measures were not necessary. Compliance with recommendations were associated with the symptoms students saw in others, and with the perceived risk of contagion in the student's immediate vicinity. It is recommended that voluntary recommendations should stress personal relevance, and that close relatives are at risk.

Objective: During the COVID pandemic, government authorities worldwide have tried to limit the spread of the virus. Swedens distinctive feature was the use of voluntary public health recommendations. Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of this strategy. Based on data collected in the spring of 2020, this study explored associations between compliance with recommendations and observed symptoms of contagion in others, using self-report data from university students. Results: Compliance with recommendations ranged between 69.7 and 95.7 percent. Observations of moderate symptoms of contagion in "Someone else I have had contact with" and "Another person"were markedly associated with reported self-quarantine, which is the most restrictive recommendation, complied with by 81.2% of participants. Uncertainty regarding the incidence and severity of contagion in cohabitants was markedly associated with the recommendation to avoid public transportation, a recommendation being followed by 69.7%. It is concluded that students largely followed the voluntary recommendations implemented in Sweden, suggesting that coercive measures were not necessary. Compliance with recommendations were associated with the symptoms students saw in others, and with the perceived risk of contagion in the students immediate vicinity. It is recommended that voluntary recommendations should stress personal relevance, and that close relatives are at risk. ; Funding Agencies|Malmo University - Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsradet) [2019-01127]

Background The integration of digital treatments into national mental health services is on the agenda in the European Union. The E-COMPARED consortium conducted a survey aimed at exploring stakeholders' knowledge, acceptance and expectations of digital treatments for depression, and at identifying factors that might influence their opinions when considering the implementation of these approaches. Method An online survey was conducted in eight European countries: France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and The United Kingdom. Organisations representing government bodies, care providers, service-users, funding/insurance bodies, technical developers and researchers were invited to participate in the survey. The participating countries and organisations reflect the diversity in health care infrastructures and e-health implementation across Europe. Results A total of 764 organisations were invited to the survey during the period March–June 2014, with 175 of these organisations participating in our survey. The participating stakeholders reported moderate knowledge of digital treatments and considered cost-effectiveness to be the primary incentive for integration into care services. Low feasibility of delivery within existing care services was considered to be a primary barrier. Digital treatments were regarded more suitable for milder forms of depression. Stakeholders showed greater acceptability towards blended treatment (the integration of face-to-face and internet sessions within the same treatment protocol) compared to standalone internet treatments. Organisations in countries with developed e-health solutions reported greater knowledge and acceptability of digital treatments. Conclusion Mental health stakeholders in Europe are aware of the potential benefits of digital interventions. However, there are variations between countries and stakeholders in terms of level of knowledge about such interventions and their feasibility within routine care services. The high acceptance of blended treatments is an interesting finding that indicates a gradual integration of technology into clinical practice may fit the attitudes and needs of stakeholders. The potential of the blended treatment approach, in terms of enhancing acceptance of digital treatment while retaining the benefit of cost-effectiveness in delivery, should be further explored. Funding The E-COMPARED project has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 603098.

Background The integration of digital treatments into national mental health services is on the agenda in the European Union. The E-COMPARED consortium conducted a survey aimed at exploring stakeholders' knowledge, acceptance and expectations of digital treatments for depression, and at identifying factors that might influence their opinions when considering the implementation of these approaches. Method An online survey was conducted in eight European countries: France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and The United Kingdom. Organisations representing government bodies, care providers, service-users, funding/insurance bodies, technical developers and researchers were invited to participate in the survey. The participating countries and organisations reflect the diversity in health care infrastructures and e-health implementation across Europe. Results A total of 764 organisations were invited to the survey during the period March–June 2014, with 175 of these organisations participating in our survey. The participating stakeholders reported moderate knowledge of digital treatments and considered cost-effectiveness to be the primary incentive for integration into care services. Low feasibility of delivery within existing care services was considered to be a primary barrier. Digital treatments were regarded more suitable for milder forms of depression. Stakeholders showed greater acceptability towards blended treatment (the integration of face-to-face and internet sessions within the same treatment protocol) compared to standalone internet treatments. Organisations in countries with developed e-health solutions reported greater knowledge and acceptability of digital treatments. Conclusion Mental health stakeholders in Europe are aware of the potential benefits of digital interventions. However, there are variations between countries and stakeholders in terms of level of knowledge about such interventions and their feasibility within routine care services. The high acceptance of blended treatments is an interesting finding that indicates a gradual integration of technology into clinical practice may fit the attitudes and needs of stakeholders. The potential of the blended treatment approach, in terms of enhancing acceptance of digital treatment while retaining the benefit of cost-effectiveness in delivery, should be further explored. Funding The E-COMPARED project has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 603098.

Background The integration of digital treatments into national mental health services is on the agenda in the European Union. The E-COMPARED consortium conducted a survey aimed at exploring stakeholders' knowledge, acceptance and expectations of digital treatments for depression, and at identifying factors that might influence their opinions when considering the implementation of these approaches. Method An online survey was conducted in eight European countries: France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and The United Kingdom. Organisations representing government bodies, care providers, service-users, funding/insurance bodies, technical developers and researchers were invited to participate in the survey. The participating countries and organisations reflect the diversity in health care infrastructures and e-health implementation across Europe. Results A total of 764 organisations were invited to the survey during the period March–June 2014, with 175 of these organisations participating in our survey. The participating stakeholders reported moderate knowledge of digital treatments and considered cost-effectiveness to be the primary incentive for integration into care services. Low feasibility of delivery within existing care services was considered to be a primary barrier. Digital treatments were regarded more suitable for milder forms of depression. Stakeholders showed greater acceptability towards blended treatment (the integration of face-to-face and internet sessions within the same treatment protocol) compared to standalone internet treatments. Organisations in countries with developed e-health solutions reported greater knowledge and acceptability of digital treatments. Conclusion Mental health stakeholders in Europe are aware of the potential benefits of digital interventions. However, there are variations between countries and stakeholders in terms of level of knowledge about such interventions and their feasibility within routine care services. The high acceptance of blended treatments is an interesting finding that indicates a gradual integration of technology into clinical practice may fit the attitudes and needs of stakeholders. The potential of the blended treatment approach, in terms of enhancing acceptance of digital treatment while retaining the benefit of cost-effectiveness in delivery, should be further explored. Funding The E-COMPARED project has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 603098. Keywords Depression; E-mental health; Comparative effectiveness research; Digital treatment; Internet-delivered; Blended treatment

Background: The integration of digital treatments into national mental health services is on the agenda in the European Union. The E-COMPARED consortium conducted a survey aimed at exploring stakeholders' knowledge, acceptance and expectations of digital treatments for depression, and at identifying factors that might influence their opinions when considering the implementation of these approaches. Method: An online survey was conducted in eight European countries: France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and The United Kingdom. Organisations representing government bodies, care providers, service-users, funding/insurance bodies, technical developers and researchers were invited to participate in the survey. The participating countries and organisations reflect the diversity in health care infrastructures and e-health implementation across Europe. Results: A total of 764 organisations were invited to the survey during the period March-June 2014, with 175 of these organisations participating in our survey. The participating stakeholders reported moderate knowledge of digital treatments and considered cost-effectiveness to be the primary incentive for integration into care services. Low feasibility of delivery within existing care services was considered to be a primary barrier. Digital treatments were regarded more suitable for milder forms of depression. Stakeholders showed greater acceptability towards blended treatment (the integration of face-to-face and internet sessions within the same treatment protocol) compared to standalone internet treatments. Organisations in countries with developed e-health solutions reported greater knowledge and acceptability of digital treatments. Conclusion: Mental health stakeholders in Europe are aware of the potential benefits of digital interventions. However, there are variations between countries and stakeholders in terms of level of knowledge about such interventions and their feasibility within routine care services. The high acceptance of blended treatments is an interesting finding that indicates a gradual integration of technology into clinical practice may fit the attitudes and needs of stakeholders. The potential of the blended treatment approach, in terms of enhancing acceptance of digital treatment while retaining the benefit of cost-effectiveness in delivery, should be further explored. Funding: The E-COMPARED project has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 603098.

Background: Effective, accessible, and affordable depression treatment is of high importance considering the large personal and economic burden of depression. Internet-based treatment is considered a promising clinical and cost-effective alternative to current routine depression treatment strategies such as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, it is not clear whether research findings translate to routine clinical practice such as primary or specialized mental health care. The E-COMPARED project aims to gain knowledge on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment compared to treatment-as-usual in routine care. Methods/design: E-COMPARED will employ a pragmatic, multinational, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight European countries. Adults diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) will be recruited in primary care (Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) or specialized mental health care (France, The Netherlands, and Switzerland). Regular care for depression is compared to "blended" service delivery combining mobile and Internet technologies with face-to-face treatment in one treatment protocol. Participants will be followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline to determine clinical improvements in symptoms of depression (primary outcome: Patient Health Questionnaire-9), remission of depression, and cost-effectiveness. Main analyses will be conducted on the pooled data from the eight countries (n = 1200 in total, 150 participants in each country). Discussion: The E-COMPARED project will provide mental health care stakeholders with evidence-based information and recommendations on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment. Trial Registration: France: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02542891 . Registered on 4 September 2015; Germany: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006866 . Registered on 2 December 2014; The Netherlands: Netherlands Trials Register NTR4962 . Registered on 5 January 2015; Poland: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02389660 . Registered on 18 February 2015; Spain: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02361684 . Registered on 8 January 2015; Sweden: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02449447 . Registered on 30 March 2015; Switzerland: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02410616 . Registered on 2 April 2015; United Kingdom: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12388725 . Registered on 20 March 2015. ; Funding agencies: European Commission [603098] ; E-COMPARED