Clinical Use of Mental Health Digital Therapeutics in a Large Health Care Delivery System: Retrospective Patient Cohort Study and Provider Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: While the number of digital therapeutics (DTx) has proliferated, there is little real-world research on the characteristics of providers recommending DTx, their recommendation behaviors, or the characteristics of patients receiving recommendations in the clinical setting. Objective: The aim of this study was to characterize the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients receiving DTx recommendations and describe provider characteristics and behaviors regarding DTx. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record data from a large, integrated health care delivery system. Demographic and clinical characteristics of adult patients recommended versus not recommended DTx by a mental health provider between May 2020 and December 2021 were examined. A cross-sectional survey of mental health providers providing these recommendations was conducted in December 2022 to assess the characteristics of providers and recommendation behaviors related to DTx. Parametric and nonparametric tests were used to examine statistical significance between groups. Results: Of 335,250 patients with a mental health appointment, 53,546 (16%) received a DTx recommendation. Patients recommended to DTx were younger, were of Asian or Hispanic race or ethnicity, were female, were without medical comorbidities, and had commercial insurance compared to those without a DTx recommendation (P<.001). More patients receiving a DTx recommendation had anxiety or adjustment disorder diagnoses, but less had depression, bipolar, or psychotic disorder diagnoses (P<.001) versus matched controls not recommended to DTx. Overall, depression and anxiety symptom scores were lower in patients recommended to DTx compared to matched controls not receiving a recommendation, although female patients had a higher proportion of severe depression and anxiety scores compared to male patients. Provider survey results indicated a higher proportion of nonprescribers recommended DTx to patients compared to prescribers (P=.008). Of all providers, 29.4% (45/153) reported using the suggested internal electronic health record-based tools (eg, smart text) to recommend DTx, and of providers recommending DTx resources to patients, 64.1% (98/153) reported they follow up with patients to inquire on DTx benefits. Only 38.4% (58/151) of respondents report recommending specific DTx modules, and of those, 58.6% (34/58) report following up on the impact of these specific modules. Conclusions: DTx use in mental health was modest and varied by patient and provider characteristics. Providers do not appear to actively engage with these tools and integrate them into treatment plans. Providers, while expressing interest in potential benefits from DTx, may view DTx as a passive strategy to augment traditional treatment for select patients.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».