Search

Objectives: Recent evidence suggests that e-mental health interventions can be effective at improving mental health but that there is still a notable hesitation among patients to use them. Previous research has revealed that they are perceived by patients as being less helpful than face-to-face psychotherapy. The reasons for this unfavorable perception are, however, not yet well understood. The aim of our study was to address this question by eliciting preferences for individual components of e-mental health interventions in a discrete choice experiment.Methods: Using a stepwise qualitative approach, we developed the following 5 attributes of eMHIs: introductory training, human contact, peer support, proven effectiveness, content delivery, and price. Additionally, we asked questions about respondents' demographics, attitudes, and previous experience of traditional psychotherapy, as well as their distress level.Results: A total of 1984 respondents completed the survey. Using mixed logit models, we found that personal contact with a psychotherapist in blended care, proven effectiveness, and low price were highly valued by participants. Participants were indifferent toward the mode of content delivery but showed a slight preference for introductory training via phone, as well as for peer support via online forum alongside coach-led group meetings on site.Discussion: Our results suggest a clear preference for blended care that includes face-to-face contact with a psychotherapist. This preference remained stable irrespective of sociodemographics, previous experience of psychotherapy, distress level, and the 2 context scenarios used in our discrete choice experiment. Further investigations looking at the potential benefits and risks of blended care are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was heterogeneous both in terms of time and magnitude. • Following COVID-19 news, trust levels, risk preferences, and vaccine confidence predicted intention reversals. • Lowering the cost of following the news for the population may raise vaccine uptake. This paper investigates the prevalence and determinants of three main states of people's willingness to be vaccinated (WTBV) against COVID-19 – willing, unwilling and hesitant – and the occurrence and predictors of shifts between these states over time. Understanding the dynamics of vaccine intentions is crucial for developing targeted campaigns to increase uptake and emergency response preparedness. A panel survey consisting of 9 quarterly waves of data collected between April 2020 and January 2022. Baseline data included 24 952 adults from Germany, UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Portugal, and Italy recruited from online panels to construct census-matched nationally representative samples. Self-reported COVID-19 vaccine intention was the main outcome. Multinomial logit random effects models were used to analyze the relationships of interest. All results reported as relative risk ratios (RRR). Hesitancy to get vaccinated was the most unstable vaccine intention, with on average 42% of ever hesitant respondents remaining in this state through future waves, followed by the 'unwilling' (53%) and 'willing (82%). Following COVID-19 news, trust in information from the government, GPs and the WHO, risk preferences, risk perceptions, and confidence in vaccines (or lack thereof) predicted vaccination intention reversals. Risk preferences acted both as an impediment and as a facilitator for the vaccine uptake depending on the initial vaccine intention. This study revealed the dynamic nature of COVID-19 vaccine intentions and its predictors in 7 European countries. The findings provide insights to policymakers for designing more effective communication strategies, particularly targeted at hesitant and unwilling to vaccinate population groups, to increase vaccine uptake for future public health emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Countries increasingly rely on competition among hospitals to improve health outcomes. However, there is limited empirical evidence on the effect of competition on health outcomes in Germany. We examined the effect of hospital competition on quality of care, which is assessed using health outcomes (risk-adjusted in-hospital and post-hospitalization mortality and cardiac-related readmissions), focusing on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treatment. We obtained data on all hospital utilizations and mortality of 13.2% of the population from a large statutory health insurer and all AMI admission records from Diagnosis-Related Groups Statistic from 2015-19. We constructed the measures of hospital competition, which mitigates the possibility of endogeneity bias. The relationships between health outcomes and competition measures are estimated using linear probability models. Intense competition was associated with lower quality of care in terms of mortality and cardiac-related readmissions. Patients treated in hospitals facing high competition were 0.9 (1.2) percentage points more likely to die within 90 days (2 years) of admission, and 1.4 (1.6) percentage points more likely to be readmitted within 90 days (2 years) of discharge than patients treated in hospitals facing low competition. Our results indicate that hospital competition does not lead to better health outcomes for AMI patients in Germany. Therefore, additional measures are necessary to achieve quality improvement. • We examined the relationship between hospital competition and quality in Germany. • Health outcomes for acute myocardial infarction patients are examined. • We addressed the endogeneity in measuring hospital competition. • Hospital competition did not lead to better health outcomes. • Policies promoting hospital competition should be accompanied by additional measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Prevalence of depression and anxiety during the pandemic in European countries. • Wave 4 (wave 5; wave 6): 26.6% (25.5%; 23.8%) had probable depression. • Wave 4 (wave 5; wave 6): 25.7% (23.6%; 22.1%) had probable anxiety. • Depression: linked to higher age, great income difficulties and low quality of life. • Anxiety: linked to income difficulties and low quality of life. Our aim was to present data on the prevalence of probable depression and anxiety and to determine their correlates during the COVID-19 pandemic in seven European countries using a longitudinal approach. Longitudinal data (wave 4 in November 2020: n = 7,115; wave 5 in January 2021: n = 7,068; wave 6 in April 2021: n = 7,204) were taken from the European COvid Survey (ECOS), a representative sample of non-institutionalized inhabitants from Germany, United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Portugal and Italy aged 18+. Probable depression and anxiety were quantified using the established and validated PHQ-4 (2-item depression scale, PHQ-2 / 2-item anxiety scale, GAD-2). In wave 4 (wave 5; wave 6), 26.6% (25.5%; 23.8%) of all respondents had probable depression and 25.7% (23.6%; 22.1%) had probable anxiety. Prevalence rates for probable depression and probable anxiety differed significantly between countries. Among all countries and waves, particularly high prevalence rates were found among individuals aged 18 to 29 years. Longitudinal analysis showed that the likelihood of probable depression was positively associated with increasing age, great income difficulties and lower health-related quality of life. The likelihood of probable anxiety was positively associated with income difficulties, and lower health-related quality of life. Screening tool was used to quantify the outcomes. The magnitude of probable depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in European countries was highlighted. Moreover, determining the factors associated with probable depression or anxiety (e.g., income difficulties, worse health-related quality of life) may assist in identifying individuals at increased risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]