Vickybot, a Chatbot for Anxiety-Depressive Symptoms and Work-Related Burnout in Primary Care and Health Care Professionals: Development, Feasibility, and Potential Effectiveness Studies.

BACKGROUND: Many people attending primary care (PC) have anxiety-depressive symptoms and work-related burnout compounded by a lack of resources to meet their needs. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this problem, and digital tools have been proposed as a solution. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to present the development, feasibility, and potential effectiveness of Vickybot, a chatbot aimed at screening, monitoring, and reducing anxiety-depressive symptoms and work-related burnout, and detecting suicide risk in patients from PC and health care workers. METHODS: Healthy controls (HCs) tested Vickybot for reliability. For the simulation study, HCs used Vickybot for 2 weeks to simulate different clinical situations. For feasibility and effectiveness study, people consulting PC or health care workers with mental health problems used Vickybot for 1 month. Self-assessments for anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) symptoms and work-related burnout (based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory) were administered at baseline and every 2 weeks. Feasibility was determined from both subjective and objective user-engagement indicators (UEIs). Potential effectiveness was measured using paired 2-tailed t tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for changes in self-assessment scores. RESULTS: Overall, 40 HCs tested Vickybot simultaneously, and the data were reliably transmitted and registered. For simulation, 17 HCs (n=13, 76% female; mean age 36.5, SD 9.7 years) received 98.8% of the expected modules. Suicidal alerts were received correctly. For the feasibility and potential effectiveness study, 34 patients (15 from PC and 19 health care workers; 76% [26/34] female; mean age 35.3, SD 10.1 years) completed the first self-assessments, with 100% (34/34) presenting anxiety symptoms, 94% (32/34) depressive symptoms, and 65% (22/34) work-related burnout. In addition, 27% (9/34) of patients completed the second self-assessment after 2 weeks of use. No significant differences were found between the first and second self-assessments for anxiety (t8=1.000; P=.34) or depressive (t8=0.40; P=.70) symptoms. However, work-related burnout scores were moderately reduced (z=-2.07, P=.04, r=0.32). There was a nonsignificant trend toward a greater reduction in anxiety-depressive symptoms and work-related burnout with greater use of the chatbot. Furthermore, 9% (3/34) of patients activated the suicide alert, and the research team promptly intervened with successful outcomes. Vickybot showed high subjective UEI (acceptability, usability, and satisfaction), but low objective UEI (completion, adherence, compliance, and engagement). Vickybot was moderately feasible. CONCLUSIONS: The chatbot was useful in screening for the presence and severity of anxiety and depressive symptoms, and for detecting suicidal risk. Potential effectiveness was shown to reduce work-related burnout but not anxiety or depressive symptoms. Subjective perceptions of use contrasted with low objective-use metrics. Our results are promising but suggest the need to adapt and enhance the smartphone-based solution to improve engagement. A consensus on how to report UEIs and validate digital solutions, particularly for chatbots, is required.

A first contribution to the validation of the Italian version of the Behavioral Pain Scale in sedated, intubated, and mechanically ventilated paediatric patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK: Numerous negative outcomes of inadequate pain management among children have been cited in the literature. Inadequate pain management may be particularly detrimental to children and adolescents facing life-threatening injury or illness on a Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). It is therefore absolutely necessary that professionals utilize effective and efficient tools in order to evaluate a person's sensations of pain in the most objective way possible. The COMFORT-B scale is recognised as the gold standard in such patients. However, the use of this instrument in the clinical PICU setting is disputed. It requires long periods of observation to ensure an adequate utilization. Boerlage et al. noted that nurses are often impatient and do not always observe the patient for the recommended 2 minutes period. The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), instead, is considered to be the gold standard for pain assessment in deeply sedated, mechanically ventilated adult patients. This observational pain scale requires shorter observation time compared to the COMFORT-B. Moreover, BPS three subscales are included in other observational pain scales for paediatric patients. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the applicability of the BPS for use with paediatric patients. METHODS: Firstly, a questionnaire was administered to physicians and nursing staff that work in the units where the study was conducted in order to investigate the actual use of observational pain scales in their units. A second questionnaire was administered to a group of experts regarding the BPS, to assess both face validity and content validity, and to gain opinions on the relative appropriateness of each item. A descriptive, comparative design was used. A convenience sample of non-verbal, sedated and mechanically ventilated critical care paediatric patients was included. 39 observations were collected from 9 patients, all in their first year of age. Patient pain was assessed concurrently with the three observational scales, before, during and after routine procedures that are considered painful and non-painful. RESULTS: The data collected through questionnaires for professionals gave a useful insight into pain assessment in the investigated units: only 46% of respondents stated that they assessed patients' pain levels, with an average of 2.8 times per shift; 60% of respondents declared to be unhappy with the observational scales that they utilise. Regarding the observations, internal consistency was α = .865. Correlations between BPS and the other instruments were high, demonstrating a good concurrent validity of the test. T test and ROC curves demonstrated a good discriminant validity as well. CONCLUSIONS: Although the current study is based on a small sample of participants, these first results encourage us to continue working in the validation of the BPS in paediatric patients.