BackgroundAs the capabilities and reach of technology have expanded, there is an accompanying proliferation of digital technologies developed for use in the care of patients with mental illness. The objective of this review was to systematically search published literature to identify currently available health technologies and their intended uses for patients with serious mental illness.Materials and methodsThe Medline, Embase, and BIOSIS Previews electronic databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed English language articles that reported the use of digital, mobile, and other advanced technology in patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder. Eligible studies were systematically reviewed based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.ResultsEighteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified. Digital health technologies (DHTs) assessed in the selected studies included mobile applications (apps), digital medicine, digital personal health records, and an electronic pill container. Smartphone apps accounted for the largest share of DHTs. The intended uses of DHTs could be broadly classified as monitoring to gain a better understanding of illness, clinical assessment, and intervention. Overall, studies indicated high usability/feasibility and efficacy/effectiveness, with several reporting validity against established clinical scales. Users were generally engaged with the DHT, and mobile assessments were deemed helpful in monitoring disease symptoms.ConclusionRapidly proliferating digital technologies seem to be feasible for short-term use in patients with serious mental illness; nevertheless, long-term effectiveness data from naturalistic studies will help demonstrate their usefulness and facilitate their adoption and integration into the mental health-care system.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveTo assess expert consensus on barriers and facilitators for long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI) use and provide clinical recommendations on issues where clinical evidence is lacking, including identifying appropriate clinical situations for LAI use.MethodsA 50-question survey comprising 916 response options was distributed to 42 research experts and high prescribers with extensive LAI experience. Respondents rated options on relative appropriateness/importance using a 9-point scale. Consensus was determined using chi-square test of score distributions. Mean (standard deviation) ratings were calculated. Responses to 29 questions (577 options) relating to appropriate patients and clinical scenarios for LAI use are reported.ResultsRecommendations aligned with research on risk factors for nonadherence and poor outcomes for patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective or bipolar disorder. Findings suggested, contrary to general practice patterns, that LAI use may be appropriate earlier in the disease course and in younger patients. Results for bipolar disorder were similar to those for schizophrenia but with less consensus. Numerous facilitators of LAI prescribing were considered important, particularly that LAIs may reduce relapses and improve outcomes.ConclusionFindings support wider use of LAIs in patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective and bipolar disorders beyond the setting of poor adherence and earlier use in the disease course.