Methodological challenges of the outcomes—reflections from a review of ICT-based prompting among patients with schizophrenia

Article type
Authors
Välimäki M1, Kauppi K1, Hätönen H1, Kuosmanen L1, Adams C2
1University of Turku, Department of Nursing Science, Finland
2Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, UK
Abstract
Background: The use of ICT in mental health care has increased during the last years. One example of integrating ICT innovations in care is the use of ICT-based prompting. There are several outcomes that prompts may effect. The basic methodological challenges are related to the choice of relevant outcomes and evaluation of non-English questionnaires.

Objectives: To reflect the methodological aspects related to the outcomes used for evaluating the effectiveness of ICT-based prompting among patients with schizophrenia.

Methods: We searched systematically the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trial Register (May 2011 and updated on November 2011). All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) focusing on ICT-based prompting for schizophrenia or related severe mental illness were included. All together 2 RCT with 358 participants were included.

Results: We found that effectiveness of ICT-based prompts was measured by using several outcomes such as treatment compliance, compliance with medication, attitude toward medication, the quality of life, functioning, satisfaction with treatment and insight. However, the instruments used varied and the reliability and validity of the questionnaires with no references in international literature was difficult to evaluate. Moreover, based on previous literature it was not clear what are the most essential outcomes from patients’ and clinical work’s perspective.

Conclusions: Two trials with the number of different outcomes and non-international questionnaires pose a challenge to the evaluation of the reliability and usability of the results. Furthermore, the variety of used outcomes creates the fragmented knowledgebase. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of ICT-based interventions there is need to more systematically choose the outcomes that are relevant from patients’ and clinical work’s perspective.