Search

BackgroundLoneliness is a growing area of concern, attracting attention as a public health concern due to its association with a variety of psychological and physical health problems. However, interventions targeting loneliness are less common than interventions for other mental health problems, such as depression and anxiety, and existing interventions focus primarily on building social skills and increasing opportunities for social interaction despite research suggesting these techniques are not the most effective. Furthermore, although there is an increasing need for scalable and convenient interventions, digital interventions for loneliness are even less common. ObjectiveUsing a qualitative approach, we explore how adults (18-64 years of age) who express wanting to be more connected to others experience loneliness and react to a digital mental health intervention targeting loneliness. MethodsA total of 11 participants were recruited from a pilot randomized controlled trial exploring the impact of a digital mental health intervention, Happify Health, on loneliness among adults aged 18-64 years who indicated wanting to feel more connected to others when signing up for the platform. Participants were invited to participate in a 3-day asynchronous focus group about their experiences with loneliness, with Happify Health, and with social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. All 11 participants completed the focus group in May 2020. ResultsParticipants’ responses were coded using thematic analysis, which led to identifying five themes, each with separate subthemes, that could be applied across the 3-day focus group: loneliness, relationships, social distancing, skill acquisition, and coping. Overall, we observed variability across participants in terms of the source of their loneliness, their perceptions of their social connections, and their motivation to reduce feelings of loneliness; however, participants commonly referred to negative self-perceptions as a cause or consequence of loneliness. Participants also varied in the extent to which they felt social distancing increased or decreased feelings of loneliness. In regard to the intervention, participants showed evidence of adopting skills they used to address their loneliness, particularly mindfulness and gratitude, and then using these skills to shift toward more active coping strategies following the intervention, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. ConclusionsThe heterogeneity in participants’ experiences with loneliness described during this focus group emphasizes the subjective and complex nature of loneliness. This highlights the importance of developing loneliness interventions that use a variety of strategies, including both direct and indirect strategies for reducing loneliness. However, based on our data, a key component to loneliness interventions is incorporating strategies for addressing underlying negative self-perceptions that stem from, but also contribute to, loneliness. This data also provides preliminary evidence that digital platforms may be an effective tool for disseminating loneliness interventions while providing the added benefit of offering a productive distraction when feeling lonely.

BackgroundReformulating opioid analgesics to deter abuse is one approach toward improving their benefit-risk balance. To assess sentiment and attempts to defeat these products among difficult-to-reach populations of prescription drug abusers, evaluation of posts on Internet forums regarding reformulated products may be useful. A reformulated version of OxyContin (extended-release oxycodone) with physicochemical properties to deter abuse presented an opportunity to evaluate posts about the reformulation in online discussions. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to use messages on Internet forums to evaluate reactions to the introduction of reformulated OxyContin and to identify methods aimed to defeat the abuse-deterrent properties of the product. MethodsPosts collected from 7 forums between January 1, 2008 and September 30, 2013 were evaluated before and after the introduction of reformulated OxyContin on August 9, 2010. A quantitative evaluation of discussion levels across the study period and a qualitative coding of post content for OxyContin and 2 comparators for the 26 month period before and after OxyContin reformulation were conducted. Product endorsement was estimated for each product before and after reformulation as the ratio of endorsing-to-discouraging posts (ERo). Post-to-preintroduction period changes in ERos (ie, ratio of ERos) for each product were also calculated. Additionally, post content related to recipes for defeating reformulated OxyContin were evaluated from August 9, 2010 through September 2013. ResultsOver the study period, 45,936 posts related to OxyContin, 18,685 to Vicodin (hydrocodone), and 23,863 to Dilaudid (hydromorphone) were identified. The proportion of OxyContin-related posts fluctuated between 6.35 and 8.25 posts per 1000 posts before the reformulation, increased to 10.76 in Q3 2010 when reformulated OxyContin was introduced, and decreased from 9.14 in Q4 2010 to 3.46 in Q3 2013 in the period following the reformulation. The sentiment profile for OxyContin changed following reformulation; the post-to-preintroduction change in the ERo indicated reformulated OxyContin was discouraged significantly more than the original formulation (ratio of ERos=0.43, P

Background/Objectives: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent disorder, frequently diagnosed and treated in a primary care setting; however, little information is available about the treatment decision-making process between MDD patients and their providers. A shared decision-making and goal attainment approach to establishing and tracking progress toward treatment goals that are meaningful to individual patients is explored in this survey study. In addition, information about patient perspectives on setting treatment goals, medication selection/switching, and engaging patients with their health care professionals was also collected and evaluated. Methods: A 50-question online survey was administered to members of the PatientsLikeMe community who indicated an MDD diagnosis and a switch in antidepressant medications within the past 2 years. Follow-up interviews were also conducted with a small subset of these participants. Results: Of the 200 participants who completed the survey, 42% reported currently having goals for MDD treatment. These goals were typically in the areas of physical health (62.7%), cognitive functioning (60.2%), and social aspects of life (57.8%). A majority of survey participants (61%) believed the goal attainment approach would be helpful to set and evaluate treatment goals. Conclusions: The data provide important insights into patient perspectives on the development of formal treatment plans and goals for MDD. In addition, the data also support the use of a patient-centric approach to shared decision-making by using a goal attainment scale to establish and track progress toward treatment goals that are meaningful to MDD patients in real-world clinical practice. The results of this study can be used to inform best practices in patient-clinician communication when developing an MDD treatment plan and goals., Competing Interests: This study was funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. The sponsor was involved in study design and implementation, analysis and interpretation of the data, writing of the report, and the decision to submit the article for publication. Emily C McNaughton and Jamie Granskie were employees of PatientsLikeMe® at the time of the study; Christopher Curran is an employee of PatientsLikeMe®. Sara Sarkey and Maggie McCue are employees of Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA. Lisa Mucha was an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA at the time of this survey study. Anna Eramo is an employee of Lundbeck LLC. Clement François was an employee of Lundbeck LLC at the time of this survey study. Mark Opler and Briana Webber-Lind are employees of MedAvante Prophase. Ms Emily C McNaughton reports study funding from Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, during the conduct of the study. Mr Christopher Curran reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants from Abbvie, Accorda, Actelion, Alexion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Avanir, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, EMD, Genentech, Genzyme, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Neuraltus, Novartis, Otsuka, Permobil, Pfizer, Sanofi, Shire, Takeda, Teva, UCB, Kaiser Permanente, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Sage Bionetworks, The AKU Society, and University of Maryland, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.