ABSTRACT
Evidence demonstrates that psychoeducation interventions have clinical and recovery-related benefits for people experiencing psychosis and their family members. The EOLAS programmes are one example of recovery-oriented psychoeducation programmes for psychosis. They differ from other programmes in that they are co-designed and co-facilitated (peer and clinician) group programmes. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, EOLAS went online using a videoconferencing platform. The study examined the feasibility, acceptability and usefulness of EOLAS-Online and explored whether some of the positive recovery outcomes reported by attendees regarding the in-person programmes were replicated online. Data were collected through an online survey and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative data. Fifteen attendees (40% of attendees) completed the surveys and eight participated in interviews. A total of 80% were satisfied/very satisfied with the programme. The programme was rated highly for increased knowledge of mental health, coping strategies, and engaging with peers. The use of technology was mostly unproblematic, although some audio and video-related challenges were identified. Engaging with the online programme was experienced positively, including facilitator support to engage. The overall findings indicate that EOLAS-Online is feasible, acceptable and useful in supporting attendees' recovery journeys.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychotic Disorders , Humans , Pandemics , Psychotic Disorders/psychology , Mental Health , FamilyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is a common and severe complication of abdominal surgery, it is associated with increased length of hospital stay, healthcare costs, and mortality. Further, pulmonary complication rates have risen during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This study explored the potential cost-effectiveness of administering preoperative chlorhexidine mouthwash versus no-mouthwash at reducing postoperative pneumonia among abdominal surgery patients. METHODS: A decision analytic model taking the South African healthcare provider perspective was constructed to compare costs and benefits of mouthwash versus no-mouthwash-surgery at 30 days after abdominal surgery. We assumed two scenarios: (i) the absence of COVID-19; (ii) the presence of COVID-19. Input parameters were collected from published literature including prospective cohort studies and expert opinion. Effectiveness was measured as proportion of pneumonia patients. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of parameter uncertainties. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis were presented using cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: In the absence of COVID-19, mouthwash had lower average costs compared to no-mouthwash-surgery, $3,675 (R 63,770) versus $3,958 (R 68,683), and lower proportion of pneumonia patients, 0.029 versus 0.042 (dominance of mouthwash intervention). In the presence of COVID-19, the increase in pneumonia rate due to COVID-19, made mouthwash more dominant as it was more beneficial to reduce pneumonia patients through administering mouthwash. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves shown that mouthwash surgery is likely to be cost-effective between $0 (R0) and $15,000 (R 260,220) willingness to pay thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Both the absence and presence of SARS-CoV-2, mouthwash is likely to be cost saving intervention for reducing pneumonia after abdominal surgery. However, the available evidence for the effectiveness of mouthwash was extrapolated from cardiac surgery; there is now an urgent need for a robust clinical trial on the intervention on non-cardiac surgery.