Problematic use of the Internet in low- and middle-income countries before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

People from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) represent large portions of the world population, often occupy less favorable living conditions, and typically suffer greater health risks, yet frequently receive little research and global health attention. The present study reviews emerging evidence on problematic use of the Internet (PUI) in LMICs prior/during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyzed studies mainly focused on general properties of PUI in university students, problematic gaming in youth, or problematic use of social media in adults, registering higher prevalence estimates, as compared with earlier reports. Research mainly focused on initially affected regions and COVID-exposed populations. Overall, unfavorable circumstances, including poor social support, family relationships, and lifestyle tendencies/habits, may present potential risk for PUI in LMICs, likely exacerbated during the pandemic.

Capturing and missing the patient's story through outcome measures: A thematic comparison of patient-generated items in PSYCHLOPS with CORE-OM and PHQ-9.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in individualized patient-reported outcome measures (I-PROMS), where patients themselves indicate the specific problems they want to address in therapy and these problems are used as items within the outcome measurement tool. OBJECTIVE: This paper examined the extent to which 279 items reported in an I-PROM (PSYCHLOPS) added qualitative information which was not captured by two well-established outcome measures (CORE-OM and PHQ-9). DESIGN: Comparison of items was only conducted for patients scoring above the "caseness" threshold on the standardized measures. SETTING AND PATIENTS: 107 patients were participating in therapy within addiction and general psychiatric clinical settings. MAIN RESULTS: Almost every patient (95%) reported at least one item whose content was not covered by PHQ-9, and 71% reported at least one item not covered by CORE-OM. DISCUSSION: Results demonstrate the relevance of individualized outcome assessment for capturing data describing the issues of greatest concern to patients, as nomothetic measures do not always seem to capture the whole story.

Enhancing the patient involvement in outcomes: a study protocol of personalised outcome measurement in the treatment of substance misuse.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients in treatment is becoming increasingly popular in mental health [Sales & Alves: Personalized evaluation of psychological treatments: A review of tools and research designs, submitted]. However, in substance misuse treatment settings, the patient perspective about treatment tends to be overlooked. This has been cited as a key priority by Orford et al. [Addiction, 103: 875-885, 2008] who included patient feedback about treatment as one of ten areas requiring an urgent paradigm shift in addiction research and practice.This project will apply an innovative method to involve substance misuse patients in psychological therapies, by asking them to suggest topics to evaluate their treatment. These topics suggested by patients can be written as a list of personalised items, so-called as patient-generated outcome measures (PGOM). Despite its patient-friendly features, PGOM's have never been used in this population, which is what this project aims to overcome. METHODS/DESIGN: This project is part of an International Exchange Platform on Personalising Addiction Treatment. Data will be collected in two phases (pre-post study and focus groups with patients) to explore the following: (1). How reliable and sensitive to change are PGOM's and standardised measures in substance misuse treatment? (2). Do PGOM's add relevant information to standardised measures? (3). What are the views of substance misuse patients about personalised outcome assessment? (4). Development of guidelines on using PGOM's in this population DISCUSSION: This research will potentially demonstrate the diversity of personal problems among patients seeking substance misuse treatment, suggesting the relevance of PGOM as a method to personalise outcome measurement and, ultimately, guiding treatment provision. It is expected that, as in previous studies, PGOM's will be perceived as helpful and patient-friendly tools, where patients may express their own concerns in a semi-structured setting. Similarly to other populations, we also expect PGOM's to be reliable, valid and sensitive to clinical changes in substance misuse treatment, as well as more content informative than their standardised counterparts. If these results are achieved, we might hypothesize that PGOM's are a potentially valid supplement to traditional standardised scales, by providing a closer insight to what motivates patients to participate in substance misuse treatment programmes.