Experiences from patients in mental healthcare accessing their electronic health records: results from a cross-national survey in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Patients' online record access (ORA) enables patients to read and use their health data through online digital solutions. One such solution, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) have been implemented in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. While accumulated research has pointed to many potential benefits of ORA, its application in mental healthcare (MHC) continues to be contested. The present study aimed to describe MHC users' overall experiences with national PAEHR services. METHODS: The study analysed the MHC-part of the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, a large-scale multi-country survey. The survey consisted of 45 questions, including demographic variables and questions related to users' experiences with ORA. We focused on the questions concerning positive experiences (benefits), negative experiences (errors, omissions, offence), and breaches of security and privacy. Participants were included in this analysis if they reported receiving mental healthcare within the past two years. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise data, and percentages were calculated on available data. RESULTS: 6,157 respondents were included. In line with previous research, almost half (45%) reported very positive experiences with ORA. A majority in each country also reported improved trust (at least 69%) and communication (at least 71%) with healthcare providers. One-third (29.5%) reported very negative experiences with ORA. In total, half of the respondents (47.9%) found errors and a third (35.5%) found omissions in their medical documentation. One-third (34.8%) of all respondents also reported being offended by the content. When errors or omissions were identified, about half (46.5%) reported that they took no action. There seems to be differences in how patients experience errors, omissions, and missing information between the countries. A small proportion reported instances where family or others demanded access to their records (3.1%), and about one in ten (10.7%) noted that unauthorised individuals had seen their health information. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, MHC patients reported more positive experiences than negative, but a large portion of respondents reported problems with the content of the PAEHR. Further research on best practice in implementation of ORA in MHC is therefore needed, to ensure that all patients may reap the benefits while limiting potential negative consequences.

If only they knew! A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing deceptive and open-label placebo in healthy individuals.

BACKGROUND: Placebo use is widespread in clinical practice. However, they are most often administered deceptively rather than openly. It is often suggested that open-label placebos (OLP) are less effective than deceptive placebos (DP). This study aimed to compare the use of DP and OLP treatments to reduce pain in healthy volunteers. METHODS: We conducted a non-inferiority, parallel, randomized, controlled trial, which also included a nested cross-over no-treatment condition. This study was conducted at a university clinic in France. RESULTS: We included 60 subjects and the main result shows that the OLP was not inferior to the DP by a margin of 10 mm. The mean difference between both groups regarding intensity of pain was 0.7 mm with a 95% compatibility interval (95% CI) of ]-∞; 5.4], and 97.5% CI of ]-∞; 6.3]. Secondary outcomes require cautious interpretation of the effect of placebo versus no treatment due to a time-treatment interaction. CONCLUSION: The study indicates that OLP may perform just as well as DP and could provide support for the use of OLP as an ethical alternative to DP when they are to be used in a clinical setting. If only patients knew about the placebo nature of some treatments they are receiving, unnecessary lies could be avoided while maintaining similar placebo effects. SIGNIFICANCE: This study is the first to show non-inferiority of placebos administered honestly, also called OLP, compared to DP in reducing pain. This suggests that OLP could be as effective as their deceptive counterparts while having the ethical advantage of not being required to lie. If deception is not a necessary condition for efficacy, OLP should be preferred over DP.

Artificial intelligence and the future of psychiatry: Qualitative findings from a global physician survey.

BACKGROUND: The potential for machine learning to disrupt the medical profession is the subject of ongoing debate within biomedical informatics. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore psychiatrists' opinions about the potential impact innovations in artificial intelligence and machine learning on psychiatric practice. METHODS: In Spring 2019, we conducted a web-based survey of 791 psychiatrists from 22 countries worldwide. The survey measured opinions about the likelihood future technology would fully replace physicians in performing ten key psychiatric tasks. This study involved qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to three open-ended questions in the survey. RESULTS: Comments were classified into four major categories in relation to the impact of future technology on: (1) patient-psychiatrist interactions; (2) the quality of patient medical care; (3) the profession of psychiatry; and (4) health systems. Overwhelmingly, psychiatrists were skeptical that technology could replace human empathy. Many predicted that 'man and machine' would increasingly collaborate in undertaking clinical decisions, with mixed opinions about the benefits and harms of such an arrangement. Participants were optimistic that technology might improve efficiencies and access to care, and reduce costs. Ethical and regulatory considerations received limited attention. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents timely information on psychiatrists' views about the scope of artificial intelligence and machine learning on psychiatric practice. Psychiatrists expressed divergent views about the value and impact of future technology with worrying omissions about practice guidelines, and ethical and regulatory issues.

Living with 'melanoma' for a day: a phenomenological analysis of medical students' simulated experiences.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rising incidence of melanoma, medical students have progressively fewer opportunities to encounter patients with this important condition. Curricula tend to attach the greatest value to intellectual forms of learning. However, compared with intellectual learning, experiential learning affords students deep insights about a condition. Doctors who experience ill health are more empathic towards patients. However, opportunities to learn about cancer experientially are limited. Temporary transfer tattoos can simulate the ill health associated with melanoma. We reasoned that if doctors who have been sick are more empathic temporarily 'having' melanoma might have a similar effect. OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of wearing a melanoma tattoo on medical students' understanding of patienthood and attitudes towards patients with melanoma. METHODS: Ten fourth-year medical students were recruited to a simulation. They wore a melanoma tattoo for 24 h and listened to a patient's account of receiving their diagnosis. Data were captured using audio diaries and face-to-face interviews, transcribed and analysed phenomenologically using the template analysis method. RESULTS: There were four themes: (i) melanoma simulation: opening up new experiences; (ii) drawing upon past experiences; (iii) a transformative introduction to patienthood; (iv) doctors in the making: seeing cancer patients in a new light. CONCLUSIONS: By means of a novel simulation, medical students were introduced to lived experiences of having a melanoma. Such an inexpensive simulation can prompt students to reflect critically on the empathetic care of such patients in the future.

Talking more about talking cures: cognitive behavioural therapy and informed consent.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has risen to prominence as an orthodox treatment option which is commonly recommended to patients with anxiety and depressive disorders. Mainstream healthcare institutions (including the National Health Service in the UK (NHS) and National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH)) assume that CBT works by helping patients to challenge and overcome 'faulty cognition'. Even if we accept the empirical evidence which shows that CBT (like other forms of psychotherapy) is a beneficial treatment there are still problems with this therapy: mainstream medicine and psychotherapy are continuing to ignore established research that CBT does not work according to its core theoretical tenets. This paper presents evidence that psychotherapy is entrenched in such conventional 'wisdom' and that practitioners are failing to meet their own codified requirement of informed consent. I examine ethical arguments for and against upholding current informed consent procedures and focus, in particular, on the relationship between respect for patient autonomy and the duty of beneficence. I argue that (so far) there are no strong grounds for the claim that patient autonomy undermines therapeutic outcome. The modest conclusion of this paper is that psychotherapy (including CBT) needs to begin to adapt informed consent procedures to comply with ongoing scientific research into its efficacy.