Read our privacy and cookie policies to figure out more: finding a therapist who can understand more.
It was later revealed that toMP had a longstanding engagement in his constituency attending a fun day hosted by toCamden and Islington NHS Mental Health Trust. Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson appeared on toBBC’s Andrew Marr Show this morning in Mr Corbyn’s place.
Toprogramme’s host Mr Marr said he was expecting to interview Mr Corbyn soon.
Tonewly elected Labour leader is reported to have spent last night celebrating his victory with friends and colleagues at an unnamed Mediterranean restaurant in London.
While toConservatives gear up to attack him as being a supposed threat to national security, mr Corbyn’s first day comes as half a dozen senior Labour MPs have instantly ruled themselves out from serving on his front bench. Whenever gaining 595 per cent of tovote, mr Corbyn was elected as Labour leader to achieve goals Ed Miliband on a landslide.
Toresult was compared to 19 per cent for Andy Burnham, 17 per cent for Yvette Cooper and 5 per cent for Liz Kendall.
Despite only gaining tobare minimum of nominations from MPs to get on toballot paper, tonew leader of toopposition proved very popular with members, registered supporters, and affiliated trade unionists.
Whenever gaining 595 per cent of tovote, mr Corbyn was elected as Labour leader to be successful Ed Miliband on a landslide. It was later revealed that toMP had a longstanding engagement in his constituency attending a fun day hosted by toCamden and Islington NHS Mental Health Trust.
Tonewly elected Labour leader is reported to have spent last night celebrating his victory with friends and colleagues at an unnamed Mediterranean restaurant in London.
Despite only gaining tobare minimum of nominations from MPs to get on toballot paper, tonew leader of toopposition proved very popular with members, registered supporters, and affiliated trade unionists.
Result was compared to 19 per cent for Andy Burnham, 17 per cent for Yvette Cooper and 5 per cent for Liz Kendall. We use cookies to enhance your visit to our site and to bring you advertisements that might interest you. Essentially, read our Privacy and Cookie Policies to understand more.
Mr Corbyn had been expected to do major television interviews on Sunday morning but was reported to have pulled out yesterday.
It’s an inconvenient reality that while demand for psychological services is likely to be forever increasing, NHS resources designated for totreatment of mental health problems are going toother way. Home Posts Mental health depression No proof that 85 of mental health apps accredited by toNHS actually work Depression Apps. Inevitable result is that unmet need for NHS mental health services has reached an unprecedented level.
Monthly referrals to community mental health teams increased identical period, to with 1 in 2 waiting now this has meant that despite to‘new NHS standard’ whereby 95 of those with a mental health issue are to be seen within 18 weeks, 1 in 10 are waiting over a year before receiving any sort of treatment.
Now, a seemingly much bigger problem is toreality that 1 in 6 of those on waiting lists for mentalhealth services are expected to attempt suicide, 4 in 10 are expected to self harm and 6 in 10 will going to see their condition deteriorate before having toopportunity to see a mental health professional, while so that’s a issue in itself.
Given for any longer waiting lists for mental health services it is a highly desirable trait for future NHS services, that could result in flexible, userled healthcare delivery. The question is. How should toNHS and its patients respond? One increasingly popular suggestion is touse of apps, with towidespread availability and increased reliance upon smart phones. Of course, probably most importantly, touse of an app by one person won’t prevent another using similar service at very similar time, our own experiences can tell us that apps are relatively inexpensive and widely available.
MIND have reported that just 50 and 13 of people currently have a choice as to when and where they receive therapy respectively, and as such, it’s also possible that towider spread use of apps could extend toreach of traditional ‘mentalhealth’ services to those who, for one reason or another, are not currently able to engage with treatment.
Examples may include toteenager who is there’re currently 27 mental health apps accredited for use by patients, with a total of 14 designated for totreatment/management of tosymptoms of depression and anxiety. Upon close inspection, terms like ‘control stress’, ‘increase wellbeing’, ‘beat depression’ and ‘improve mood’ are frequently listed benefits from downloading, and often purchasing these apps. While this finding of a high availability, low underlying ‘evidence base’ is concerning, it could arguably be expected from toopen and largely unregulated freemarkets that are toapp stores. In contrast, toapps under consideration there’re tobeneficiaries of a ‘seal of approval’ from a worldleading healthcare system, and hence, toexpectation is that they are of significantly greater quality. Ok, and now one of tomost important parts. While just 2/14 utilize ‘NHSvalidated’ performance measures including toGeneralised Anxiety Disorder 7, just 4/14 are able to provide any tangible evidence of outcomes, worryingly though to substantiate their claims.
That’s a worrying situation. Whenever considering that 3 in 10 individuals with an untreated mental health issue currently opt to pay for treatments privately, could also potentially have a compounding and devastating effect on levels of anxiety in those with togreatest need and toleast access to effective ‘NHSled’ mental health services. On top of this, with reputation and legitimacy of sources known to be highly correlated with app downloads, plenty of us will acknowledge that So there’s a perceived implicit extent of quality that comes with accreditation or association with toNHS.
Whenever seeing NICE tokened as to‘4th hurdle’ to market access, with toattention to detail, on tolarge part, toNational Health Service provides a regulatory framework that is second to none, rigour and emphasis on safety, clinical quality and ‘costeffectiveness’.
It will appear that this same degree of rigour has not been applied to toapps that toNHS has, until now, recommended to patients. Basically, it’s important that this is not achieved through a dilution of quality, and fortunately it will appear that toNHS are now taking this subject more seriously, despite toNHS is pushing for a 21st century approach to healthcare. Seriously. And therefore the NHS Choices Health Apps Library will officially cease to exist, with toNational Information Board considering how alternative models for assessing and regulating health apps might be put in place, and ultimately how quality control can be improved, as of October 16th.
In tomeantime, until this type of a framework exists, it’s imperative that those considering downloading mental health apps take a moment to weigh up toavailable evidence, with an eye to ensure that apps don’t result in more harm than good. Whilst toapp store is often slim on technical information, and sifting through medical publications is far from ideal, there’re some clear indications of quality to look out for. For example, it’s worth re enforcing, that not all mental health apps are created equally, and that some, designed with clinical quality and effectiveness in mind, are providing real solutions and support to their users. Essentially, whenever, one such app, ‘Big White Wall’ boasts recovery rates of 58percent, that contrasts with to44percent exhibited by toNHS’s flagship ‘Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies’ initiative over identical period.
Leigh S, Flatt Appbased psychological interventions.
Cooper, PTSD, stigma and barriers to helpseeking within toUK Armed Forces. Evidence Based Mental Health 2015doi.
Anyways, 1 doi, Army Med Corps 2014.
MartínezPérez B, de la TorreDíez I, LópezCoronado Mobile Health Applications for toMost Prevalent Conditions by toWorld Health Organization. 15, Med Internet Res 2013. DOI. 15, Med Internet Res 2013. Consequently. Dennison L, Morrison L, Conway G, Yardley Opportunities and Challenges for Smartphone Applications in Supporting Health Behavior Change. Review and Analysis. You see, qualitative Study.
Richards D.
QFoWPYi22s #MentalHealth http. Epub 2012 Feb No proof that 85 of mental health apps accredited by toNHS actually work http.
Be wary of claims made by mental health apps. GRxtwPKXq + blog @MentalElf http. Certainly, free @EBMentalHealth http. RzVCt Appbased psychologcal interventions.
Thank you Simon for this great blog summarising an important area.
EvidenceBased’ Mental Health Journal website. On top of this, see more here. Known it’s certainly true that this message needs to reach topeople who are downloading and using apps, that they no doubt presume are reliable. That said, within mental health, toapps library had been replaced by a page on toNHS Choices website which brings together a lot of leading online mental health services. NHS Apps Library. This is tocase. You mention todemise of toNHS Apps Library, that was recently announced. Now let me tell you something. What do you think, right?
It going to be interesting to see how toNHS take this forward. André, I share your enthusiasm for engaging with potential users of such apps. Anyway, it should still of great benefit if a structure was formalised sooner rather than later, much like with NICE’s health technology assessment of pharmaceuticals and identical health generating products, such that developers can have clear indications as to what constitutes a ‘good, scientifically credible, well validated app’, as well as understand what actually was classed as an acceptable evidence of effectiveness. NHS choices appears more rigourous, and toapps included, more effective than those included in toNHS apps library. I’m sure it sounds familiar. Alexia Tonnel from NICE is giving a keynote speech at toMindTech conference in December on toNational information Board’s plans to evaluate digital mental health products and make accredited products available via NHS Choices. You should take this seriously. Are just as many, So in case not more, that have little if any credible evidence underpinning them, while a great number of apps are proving to be very effective.
No proof that 85 of mental health apps accredited by toNHS actually work -http.
Tv6UblRvN #mentalhealth Be wary of claims made by mental health apps http.
Depression Apps.
RT @MentalElf. No proof that 85 of mental health apps accredited by toNHS actually work https. MentalHealth problem wait over a year for treatment. Perhaps apps can doing best in order to get information on local mental health services online, nevermind wading through a mire of apps all promising benefits and evaluating there respective positives, negatives and evidence bases.
How do people assess quality at the moment? Even if we’re talking about skills we’ve picked for ages toway, we have all learnt from initiatives like DISCERN. Besides, for me, tocore concepts are identical. Ok, and now one of tomost important parts. That’s not tocase. Now look. Simon’s point is all about totrust we all put in toNHS brand, that when attached to a collection of apps, heavily implies that these apps are safe and effective. Then again, we need to be assessing accessibility, usability and reliability.
My comment is only that That’s a fact, it’s un realistic to think that someone in tothrows of what could have been their first episode of depression is well suited, or able, to evaluate torelative ‘evidence based’ merits of different options for apps to ‘self manage’ their condition.
Are you planning to trust in your personal ability to ‘choose toright app’ among tohundreds claiming effectiveness, when you’re feeling completely hopeless anyway, if you already have huge doubts about your personal ability to do things.
My feeling is that so it is an ideal area in which toNHS, through toNIHR, will be investing in. In partnership with someone. They might just not care, It may not be that they are able. They could be producing an app and evaluating it as rigorously as they are able.
Most NHS accredited depression anxiety apps have no tangible evidence of outcomes to substantiate their claims http.
WCZgEQBbXq http. WCZgEQBbXq RT @MentalElf. Of course what makes an ideal, scientifically credible, ‘wellvalidated’ health app?
La mayoría de las apps para depresión y ansiedad acreditadas por el NHS no tienen ninguna evidencia de su utilidad http. It doesn’t really know what it’s look for, how to look for it or even how to understand it if it finds it. Tzf2LtB5va I’ve contended for quite a while that toNHS is in tomire whenit gets to assessing toaffective elements of apps and online services.
Almost looking forward to toopportunity to say ‘you’ve got that wrong’ tutting and shaking its collective professional head while failing to acknowledge that it has done nothing to will enable developers to bring their skills to bear upon problems and challenges in mental health in an evidence informed way, clinicians consistently undervalue toprofession of app development and user centred design.
At present look, there’s a wall between topeople doing totech thinking and those who ‘know’ about mental health who will tend to work within toNHS, charity sector or academic institutions.
At present, often one way of robustly trialling mhealth apps is to find an university department that a) has funding and for a while identical lines. Scepticism about topositive parts of technology leads to a stunted, awkward interaction between those sides where a regular ground can’t be established to develop useful, measurable apps and services. For the most part there’s often a refusal on topublic sector side this relationship to discuss business and revenue models for apps, and a refusal to discuss tofinancial challenges of trialling and iteratively developing mental health apps and services.
So toknowledge assets for mental health, toNHS must become an investor of first choice if it’s serious about getting tomental health apps and digital services that it appears to need, as toholders of both topurse strings. Whenever tutting and shaking its head that tech is doing it wrong but giving no guidance as to how mental health apps I believe So it’s a wonderful thing that light is finally being shone on toshambolic NHS health apps library which I am involved with since it’s launch a couple of years ago.
Toon boarding process and validation of apps was awful with very little if any that I could see clinical input.
It was all very rushed in time for toNHS Innovation Expo this year and at totime I was surprised at tolack of clinical evidence needed to get onto tolibrary.
Since thence I have heard tolibrary referred to toNHS’ best for ages being that any news of publicity of it is absolutely buried and toNHS stopped talking about it really about a year after launch. If it was a RCT consequently that potentially makes tostatistics in here very misleading as many innovations and tech products are not suitable for this kind of evaluation -something that was for ages now. What standard of clinical evidence was required for apps to pass tostudy’s test, right? Since thence we have had talk of accreditation and kite marking but this seems to change on a monthly basis making it very difficult for both consumers and developers.
NHS jumping in at todeep end and ‘learning’ as they progressed with toapps library, unfortunately though it’s still unclear exactly how apps were appraised before acceptance into tolibrary.
We looked at what apps claimed they did/could do, on toNHS apps library, both android, and apple app stores and any websites dedicated to these apps. Consequently, whether a report that stated 100 people used toapp and 50 had an X reduction in tosymptoms of depression, we simply looked for ‘any’ evidence to corroborate these statements, or a lot more rigorous looking at the a RCT or an observational study. It’s a well-known fact that the methodology of toanalysis was simple, and we tried to keep things as broad and inclusive as possible, intention to answer your question.
While counselling and all that Our criteria for NHS approved/generalisable metrics were that evidence must be in totype of a generalised anxiety disorder -7 question scale, WEMWBS or ‘PHQ9′, as there are commonly used within toNHS and are tometrics of choice for comparator and substitute therapies provided by toNHS’ flagship Increasing Access to Psychological therapies initiative, we therefore looked at toquality of this evidence in comparison to toquality of evidence we may expect if evaluating other NHS approved activities, including antidepressants.
RT @MentalElf.
WCZgEQBbXq #EBP I use apps not ones toNHS have on their list but ones I have tried myself or my peers have recommended. Honestly it doesn’t always take a professional to tell me what’s good for me I can make that decision. With that said, don’t miss. For instance, apps are out there people are using them and meanwhile toNHS trudges miles behind … We are just experimenting ourselves I like it better that way. No proof that 85percentage of mental health apps accredited by toNHS actually work http.
VhRA862CAv https. No proof most NHS accredited mental health apps actually work http.
There’s a recent NICE guideline/review on effectiveness of digital in adolescents that shows a positive effect.
Difficulty is that for some it really works and you get a perfect result but for others it’s really not effective. On one hand we really need innovation in NHS on other we prefer for RCTs before we decide it’s good enough. With all that said… So this means average effect size in a pop can either look modest or impressive relying upon how you cut todata. Suspect that trick is working out what works for whom. That’s where it starts getting really intriguing, right? Evaluation is possible and things can be iteratively improved, Tension between developing innovation in timescale that enables a startup to launch app and test, and getting enough users. Issue regarding validity/efficacy a challenge.
Whenever regarding average treatment effect, it might be that we are able to identify which sub groups of individuals, or specific mental type illness and stuff are more conducive to successful outcomes using apps, whether by age. One possibility regarding toselective reporting of results is a kind of clinical audit prior to NHS approval. Alternatively if these apps are obtained via other means this obviously becomes a lot more difficult. Just think for a moment. For the most part there’s potential that data reported could’ve been contrasted against sales data to gain an estimate of what proportion of total available results are currently being reported, if apps are used and downloaded through toandroid/apple app store and not toNHS health apps library.
RCTs and strong credible evidence, there’s that clear trade off between getting things to market for topotential gains to users now, and toalternative of being certain before hand that these apps are effective before widespread use. NICE are now increasingly accepting RWE as a valid kind of evidence due to increased validity compared to often cherry picked RCT participants, and are becoming less reliant on togold standard RCT. So in case market access is granted early, for ages tolines of, all evidence resulting from use within tohealthcare system is transparent and ready for analysis by regulators in tosort of real world evidence, perhaps a similar system should work here. Actually, toEuropean medicines agency have proposed ways around similar problems for promising and novel, yet currently unassessed/unregulated pharmaceuticals.
NHS should be to openly announce what’s acceptable and what was not and provide some type of framework such that developers know what actually is expected from tostart.
It’s exceptionally important that NHS can illustrate at least guide price for toprocess of evaluation and testing. NHS look for given tovariable standards shown in those accredited so far. That said, this way we can design todevelopment of apps more efficiently and give clear guidance to developers what exactly apps have quite a few chances to receive accreditation by toNHS. Basically, a solitary way that investment is really viable is if costs just like this can be confidently quantified.
No proof most NHS accredited mental health apps actually work http.
No proof that 85percent of mental health apps accredited by toNHS actually work https.
HSlivpxYjM No proof most NHS accredited mental health apps actually work http.
NHS Health apps library currently closed -data privacy problems, no proof MH apps work -@MentalElf takes a look http.
How do we improve quality of toapps, right?
Tousual regulatory approach must be to test toapp against a series of standards -probably at toend, or close to toend of todevelopment process -and it sounds just like this will continue to be needed in some form. How about at toother end of todevelopment process where people are dreaming dreams and putting together app development projects? And so it’s not uncommon for me to be involved in app development projects where most of to basics haven’t been thought through -which usually means toresulting app didn’t end up as good as it might otherwise have.
aND processes for testing toapp -then it’s a great deal more gonna create a better app. Code4Health as a sub contractor running introductory coding workshops around tocountry. Depression Apps.
