A randomised controlled trial investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Alpha-Stim AID cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) in patients seeking treatment for moderate severity depression in primary care (Alpha-Stim-D Trial).

BACKGROUND: Major depression is the second leading cause of years lost to disability worldwide and is a leading contributor to suicide. However, first-line antidepressants are only fully effective for 33%, and only 40% of those offered psychological treatment attend for two sessions or more. Views gained from patients and primary care professionals are that greater treatment uptake might be achieved if people with depression could be offered alternative and more accessible treatment options. Although there is evidence that the Alpha-Stim Anxiety Insomnia and Depression (AID) device is safe and effective for anxiety and depression symptoms in people with anxiety disorders, there is much less evidence of efficacy in major depression without anxiety. This study investigates the effectiveness of the Alpha-Stim AID device, a cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) treatment that people can safely use independently at home. The device provides CES which has been shown to increase alpha oscillatory brain activity, associated with relaxation. METHODS: The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Alpha-Stim AID in treatment-seeking patients (aged 16 years upwards) with moderate to moderately severe depressive symptoms in primary care. The study is a multi-centre parallel-group, double-blind, non-commercial, randomised controlled superiority trial. The primary objective of the study is to examine the clinical efficacy of active daily use of 8 weeks of Alpha-Stim AID versus sham Alpha-Stim AID on depression symptoms at 16 weeks (8 weeks after the end of treatment) in people with moderate severity depression. The primary outcome is the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at 16 weeks. All trial and treatment procedures are carried out remotely using videoconferencing, telephone and postal delivery considering the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. DISCUSSION: This study is investigating whether participants using the Alpha-Stim AID device display a reduction in depressive symptoms that can be maintained over 8 weeks post-treatment. The findings will help to determine whether Alpha-Stim AID should be recommended, including being made available in the NHS for patients with depressive symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRTCN ISRCTN11853110 . Registered on 14 August 2020.

Provider perspectives on telemental health implementation: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and paths forward.

After years of slow and fragmented implementation of telemental health (TMH), the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated widespread adoption. With the initial state of public health emergency behind us, we are at a decision point on whether to continue with TMH or return to a largely in-person care model. In this qualitative study, we investigated clinicians' perspectives on advantages and disadvantages of TMH in outpatient mental healthcare as well as considerations for future implementation. We conducted 29 semistructured interviews with outpatient mental health providers. Data were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis methodology. Advantages included increased utilization of services, improved therapeutic processes, and improved provider wellbeing. Providers, however, also noted that TMH has some disadvantages in terms of therapeutic processes and provider wellbeing, and they reported technology issues as an additional disadvantage. Overall providers reported they can provide high quality care via TMH, but indicated some patient populations and appointment types are a better fit for in-person services. Most providers preferred a hybrid model of care moving forward with reimbursement discrepancies and out-of-state licensure restrictions as barriers. They indicated that, as TMH becomes a mainstay in psychiatric care, training and professional guidelines will be important. Continued implementation of TMH alongside in-person care is likely to offer improved access and enhanced service quality when applied to the right patient populations and appointment types. Effective implementation may require policy and systems level support on equitable reimbursement rates, out-of-state licensure restrictions and professional guidelines for delivering TMH. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Changes in daily mental health service use and mortality at the commencement and lifting of COVID-19 'lockdown' policy in 10 UK sites: a regression discontinuity in time design.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate changes in daily mental health (MH) service use and mortality in response to the introduction and the lifting of the COVID-19 'lockdown' policy in Spring 2020. DESIGN: A regression discontinuity in time (RDiT) analysis of daily service-level activity. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Mental healthcare data were extracted from 10 UK providers. OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily (weekly for one site) deaths from all causes, referrals and discharges, inpatient care (admissions, discharges, caseloads) and community services (face-to-face (f2f)/non-f2f contacts, caseloads): Adult, older adult and child/adolescent mental health; early intervention in psychosis; home treatment teams and liaison/Accident and Emergency (A&E). Data were extracted from 1 Jan 2019 to 31 May 2020 for all sites, supplemented to 31 July 2020 for four sites. Changes around the commencement and lifting of COVID-19 'lockdown' policy (23 March and 10 May, respectively) were estimated using a RDiT design with a difference-in-difference approach generating incidence rate ratios (IRRs), meta-analysed across sites. RESULTS: Pooled estimates for the lockdown transition showed increased daily deaths (IRR 2.31, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.87), reduced referrals (IRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70) and reduced inpatient admissions (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83) and caseloads (IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91) compared with the pre lockdown period. All community services saw shifts from f2f to non-f2f contacts, but varied in caseload changes. Lift of lockdown was associated with reduced deaths (IRR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.66), increased referrals (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.60) and increased inpatient admissions (IRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42) and caseloads (IRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12) compared with the lockdown period. Site-wide activity, inpatient care and community services did not return to pre lockdown levels after lift of lockdown, while number of deaths did. Between-site heterogeneity most often indicated variation in size rather than direction of effect. CONCLUSIONS: MH service delivery underwent sizeable changes during the first national lockdown, with as-yet unknown and unevaluated consequences.