León‐García, Montserrat

<title>RESUMEN</title> <p>A pesar de que la Práctica Basada en la Evidencia (PBE) ha estandarizado los tratamientos psicológicos, la realidad clínica sigue enfrentándose a una barrera persistente: la dificultad de traducir los resultados de ensayos clínicos grupales a la singularidad de cada paciente en contextos reales. Como respuesta, la Salud Mental de Precisión (SMP) propone una evolución del modelo actual, integrando el cuidado basado en la medición y la toma de decisiones basada en datos para ajustar la intervención a las necesidades específicas de cada persona, gracias en gran medida a desarrollos tecnológicos recientes como la Inteligencia Artificial (IA). En este contexto, el presente artículo persigue dos objetivos fundamentales. En primer lugar, sintetiza los pilares operativos de la SMP, analizando cómo la medición rutinaria y las predicciones algorítmicas pueden potenciar el juicio clínico del profesional. En segundo lugar, se introduce el proyecto NOVA (Navigating Outcomes via Analytics), un proyecto traslacional diseñado para superar las barreras actitudinales, tecnológicas, estadísticas y contextuales de la implementación de herramientas de SMP en España. Se discute sobre los pasos necesarios para cerrar la brecha entre la innovación tecnológica y la práctica asistencial en psicología, acelerando la adopción sostenible de una psicología de precisión en el mundo real.</p>

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) has increased the availability of psychological treatments, yet many people do not benefit from therapy, some report deteriorations in symptoms, and dropout rates remain high. Precision Mental Health (PMH) is proposed as an extension of EBP by combining systematic measurement with predictive analytics to support the right intervention, at the right time, for the right person. Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) make PMH increasingly feasible in routine psychotherapy; however, the implementation of these approaches in routine care is still incipient. In this context, the present article has two main aims. First, we summarize key advances in PMH, particularly measurement-based care and data-informed decision making. Second, we introduce the NOVA project (Navigating Outcomes via Analytics), a multi-phase translational program designed to implement PMH in real-world psychological services. Guided by the Implementing Precision Methods framework, NOVA integrates (i) stakeholder-informed work on clinician acceptability and intention to use, (ii) pragmatic evaluation of decision support tools in routine care, (iii) development of robust and interpretable predictive models, and (iv) training and dissemination activities aligned with responsible innovation and professional competencies for AI-supported precision care. By detailing NOVA’s implementation pathway, we aim to provide a concrete roadmap for bridging AI innovation and psychological practice, accelerating the sustainable adoption of PMH in real-world settings.

Background The objective is to examine and synthesise the best available experimental evidence about the effect of ambulatory consultation duration on quality of healthcare. Methods We included experimental studies manipulating the length of outpatient clinical encounters between adult patients and clinicians (ie, therapists, pharmacists, nurses, physicians) to determine their effect on quality of care (ie, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, safety, equity, patient-centredness and patient satisfaction). Information sources Using controlled vocabulary and keywords, without restriction by language or year of publication, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from inception until 15 May 2023. Risk of bias Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument. Data synthesis Narrative synthesis. Results 11 publications of 10 studies explored the relationship between encounter duration and quality. Most took place in the UK’s general practice over two decades ago. Study findings based on very sparse and outdated evidence—which suggested that longer consultations improved indicators of patient-centred care, education about prevention and clinical referrals; and that consultation duration was inconsistently related to patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes—warrant low confidence due to limited protections against bias and indirect applicability to current practice. Conclusion Experimental evidence for a minimal or optimal duration of an outpatient consultation is sparse and outdated. To develop evidence-based policies and practices about encounter length, randomised trials of different consultation lengths—in person and virtually, and with electronic health records—are needed. Trial registration number OSF Registration DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/EUDK8.

Abstract Background/Aims In shared decision-making conversations, patients with or at risk of osteoporosis and their clinicians collaborate to decide which drug treatments fit best for each person. The Perceptions and Practicalities Approach (PAPA) specifies three core considerations of drug uptake and commitment: 1) patient’s perceived personal need for treatment (necessity beliefs). 2) patient concerns about the potential adverse consequences of drugs (e.g. side effects). 3) practical difficulties (e.g. limitations in capacity and resources). This study aims to explore how discussions about perceptions and practicalities of osteoporosis drug treatment arise and evolve in the context of clinical consultations about osteoporosis. Methods Secondary analysis of 38 video-recorded primary care consultations from a Mayo Clinic trial evaluating the Osteoporosis Choice Decision Aid. Video-recorded consultations included ‘usual care’ (n = 24) and decision aid (n = 14). Patient participants were aged 50 and over with osteopenia or osteoporosis not already receiving drug treatment. A quantitative coding scheme, informed by the PAPA, was developed to extract: i) how clinicians framed the ‘problem’ of osteoporosis, including: bone density results, fracture risk, physical impact, social impact, or psychological impact of fracture. ii) whether clinicians asked about the patients’ views of osteoporosis, patients own bone health, and the necessity, concerns, or practical issues associated with osteoporosis drugs. iii) whether clinicians personalised discussions about osteoporosis drugs to patients perceived: importance or need, side effects or harms, or practical issues. Two independent study team members dual extracted data, with a third member resolving discrepancies. Extracted data was summarised using descriptive statistics. Results Commonly, clinicians framed osteoporosis using the patient’s bone density results (n = 38,100%) and fracture risk (n = 30,79%). In contrast, few clinicians acknowledged the potential physical impacts of fracture (n = 5,13%), with no clinicians discussing the possible psychological or social impacts. Clinicians asked 24 questions to elicit patient views in 16 of the 38 encounters (42%, range 0-4 questions per consult). The 24 questions concerned patient views about osteoporosis (n = 1,4%), their bone health (n = 5,21%), or the necessity (n = 1,4%), concerns (n = 2,8%), or practical issues associated with osteoporosis drugs (n = 2,8%). Importantly, 14 consultations (37%) contained no questions to elicit patient views. Across the 38 consultations, clinicians personalised information about the patient’s need for osteoporosis drugs in 15 consultations (39%), with less personalisation about the side effects/harms (n = 10,26%), or practical issues (n = 6,16%) associated with osteoporosis drugs. Conclusion Clinical consultations rarely considered key personal determinants of osteoporosis drug uptake and commitment. Even when clinicians used an osteoporosis decision aid, few discussions specifically elicited or addressed patients’ personal treatment necessity beliefs, concerns and practical difficulties. Additionally, clinicians seldom acknowledged the potential physical and psychosocial impacts of osteoporosis. The findings demonstrate the need for multicomponent interventions, incorporating the PAPA-based approach, to facilitate shared decision-making that takes account of patient perceptions and practicalities. Disclosure A.W. Hawarden: Grants/research support; AH is funded by a Versus Arthritis Clinical Doctoral Fellowship (grant reference 227260). L. Bullock: None. M. León-García: Grants/research support; ML-G had financial support from the Spanish Health Institute Carlos III (ISCIII) co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (Grant number: F18/00014).. S.A. Hartasanchez: None. I. Hargraves: None. R. Horne: None. A. Maraboto: None. M. Kunneman: Grants/research support; MK had financial support from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) (#016.196.138). C. Jinks: Grants/research support; CJ is part funded by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. Z. Paskins: Grants/research support; ZP is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Clinician Scientist Award (CS-2018-18-ST2-010)/NIHR Academy].

Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and death. The use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), despite being the standard of care to prevent VTE, comes with some challenges. Shared decision-making (SDM) interventions are recommended to support patients and clinicians in making preference-sensitive decisions. The quality of the SDM process has been widely assessed with the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Our aim is to report participants’ perspectives of each of the components of an SDM intervention (DASH-TOP) in relation to the different subscales of the DCS. Methods Design: A convergent, parallel, mixed-methods design. Participants: The sample consisted of 22 health care professionals, students of an Applied Clinical Research in Health Sciences (ICACS) master program. Intervention: We randomly divided the participants in three groups: Group 1 received one component (evidence -based information), Group 2 received two components (first component and value elicitation exercises), and Group 3 received all three components (the first two and a decision analysis recommendation) of the SDM intervention. Analysis: For the quantitative strand, we used a non-parametric test to analyze the differences in the DCS subscales between the three groups. For the qualitative strand, we conducted a content analysis using the decisional conflict domains to deductively categorize the responses. Results Groups that received more intervention components experienced less conflict and better decision-making quality, although the differences between groups were not statistically significant. The decision analysis recommendation improved the efficacy with the decision-making process, however there are some challenges when implementing it in clinical practice. The uncertainty subscale showed a high decisional conflict for all three groups; contributing factors included low certainty of the evidence-based information provided and a perceived small effect of the drug to reduce the risk of a VTE event. Conclusions The DASH-TOP intervention reduced decisional conflict in the decision -making process, with decision analysis being the most effective component to improve the quality of the decision. There is a need for more implementation research to improve the delivery of SDM interventions in the clinical encounter.

Abstract Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is an important cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the cornerstone of prophylaxis and treatment of thrombotic events during pregnancy. LMWH has fewer adverse effects than other anticoagulants, does not cross the placenta, and is safe for the fetus. However, the use of LMWH during pregnancy is sensitive to womens’ underlying preferences. The objective of this review is to systematically assess women’s values and preferences research evidence on this topic.Methods: We searched four electronic databases from inception to March 2022, and included studies examining values and preferences of using LMWH among pregnant women at risk of VTE. We followed a convergent integrated mixed-methods design to compare and contrast quantitative (utility and non-utility measures) and qualitative findings. We assessed the certainty of the values and preferences evidence with the GRADE approach for quantitative findings, and with GRADE-CERqual for qualitative evidence. Results were presented in a conjoint display.Results: We screened 3,393 references and identified seven eligible studies. The mixed methods analysis resulted in four themes. Datasets confirmed each other in that: 1) the majority of women consider that benefits of treatment outweigh the inconveniences of daily injections; and 2) main concerns around medication are safety and injections administration. Quantitative outcomes expanded on the qualitative findings in that: 3) participants who perceived a higher risk of VTE were more willing to take LMWH. Finally, we found a discrepancy between the datasets around: 4) the amount of information preferred to make the decision; however, qualitative data expanded to clarify that women prefer making informed decisions and receive support from their clinician in their decision-making process.Conclusions: We are moderately confident that in the context of pregnancy, using LMWH is preferred by women given its net beneficial balance. Integrating data from different sources of evidence, and representing them in a jointly manner helps to identify patient’s values and preferences. Our results may inform clinical practice guidelines and support shared decision-making process in the clinical encounter for the management of VTE in the context of pregnancy.