Right choice, right time

Evaluation of an online decision aid for youth depression

Magenta B Simmons, Aurora Elmes, Joanne E. McKenzie, Lyndal Trevena, Sarah E. Hetrick

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)714-723
Number of pages10
JournalHealth Expectations
Volume20
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2017

Keywords

  • Adolescents
  • Depression
  • Patient decision aids
  • Shared decision making
  • Young adults

Cite this

Simmons, Magenta B ; Elmes, Aurora ; McKenzie, Joanne E. ; Trevena, Lyndal ; Hetrick, Sarah E. / Right choice, right time : Evaluation of an online decision aid for youth depression. In: Health Expectations. 2017 ; Vol. 20, No. 4. pp. 714-723.
@article{1e8e168fd9b247db842c2252003373e1,
title = "Right choice, right time: Evaluation of an online decision aid for youth depression",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Adolescents, Depression, Patient decision aids, Shared decision making, Young adults",
author = "Simmons, {Magenta B} and Aurora Elmes and McKenzie, {Joanne E.} and Lyndal Trevena and Hetrick, {Sarah E.}",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/hex.12510",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "714--723",
journal = "Health Expectations",
issn = "1369-6513",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

Right choice, right time : Evaluation of an online decision aid for youth depression. / Simmons, Magenta B; Elmes, Aurora; McKenzie, Joanne E.; Trevena, Lyndal; Hetrick, Sarah E.

In: Health Expectations, Vol. 20, No. 4, 08.2017, p. 714-723.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Right choice, right time

T2 - Evaluation of an online decision aid for youth depression

AU - Simmons, Magenta B

AU - Elmes, Aurora

AU - McKenzie, Joanne E.

AU - Trevena, Lyndal

AU - Hetrick, Sarah E.

PY - 2017/8

Y1 - 2017/8

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Adolescents

KW - Depression

KW - Patient decision aids

KW - Shared decision making

KW - Young adults

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991474906&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/hex.12510

DO - 10.1111/hex.12510

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 714

EP - 723

JO - Health Expectations

JF - Health Expectations

SN - 1369-6513

IS - 4

ER -