Expectations, experiences and attitudes of patients and primary care health professionals regarding online psychotherapeutic interventions for depression: protocol for a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND In the year 2020, depression will cause the second highest amount of disability worldwide. One quarter of the population will suffer from depression symptoms at some point in their lives. Mental health services in Western countries are overburdened. Therefore, cost-effective interventions that do not involve mental health services, such as online psychotherapy programs, have been proposed. These programs demonstrate satisfactory outcomes, but the completion rate for patients is low. Health professionals' attitudes towards this type of psychotherapy are more negative than the attitudes of depressed patients themselves. The aim of this study is to describe the profile of depressed patients who would benefit most from online psychotherapy and to identify expectations, experiences, and attitudes about online psychotherapy among both patients and health professionals that can facilitate or hinder its effects. METHODS A parallel qualitative design will be used in a randomised controlled trial on the efficiency of online psychotherapeutic treatment for depression. Through interviews and focus groups, the experiences of treated patients, their reasons for abandoning the program, the expectations of untreated patients, and the attitudes of health professionals will be examined. Questions will be asked about training in new technologies, opinions of online psychotherapy, adjustment to therapy within the daily routine, the virtual and anonymous relationship with the therapist, the process of online communication, information necessary to make progress in therapy, process of working with the program, motivations and attitudes about treatment, expected consequences, normalisation of this type of therapy in primary care, changes in the physician-patient relationship, and resources and risks. A thematic content analysis from the grounded theory for interviews and an analysis of the discursive positions of participants based on the sociological model for focus groups will be performed. DISCUSSION Knowledge of the expectations, experiences, and attitudes of both patients and medical personnel regarding online interventions for depression can facilitate the implementation of this new psychotherapeutic tool. This qualitative investigation will provide thorough knowledge of the perceptions, beliefs, and values of patients and clinicians, which will be very useful for understanding how to implement this intervention method for depression.

Application of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) to evaluate the whole gastrointestinal tract: a comparative study of single-camera and dual-camera analysis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was developed for the evaluation of colorectal pathology. In this study, our aim was to assess if a dual-camera analysis using CCE allows better evaluation of the whole gastrointestinal (GI) tract compared to a single-camera analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS We included 21 patients (12 males, mean age 56.20 years) submitted for a CCE examination. After standard colon preparation, the colon capsule endoscope (PillCam Colon™) was swallowed after reinitiation from its "sleep" mode. Four physicians performed the analysis: two reviewed both video streams at the same time (dual-camera analysis); one analyzed images from one side of the device ("camera 1"); and the other reviewed the opposite side ("camera 2"). We compared numbers of findings from different parts of the entire GI tract and level of agreement among reviewers. RESULTS A complete evaluation of the GI tract was possible in all patients. Dual-camera analysis provided 16% and 5% more findings compared to camera 1 and camera 2 analysis, respectively. Overall agreement was 62.7% (kappa = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.373-0.510). Esophageal (kappa = 0.611) and colorectal (kappa = 0.595) findings had a good level of agreement, while small bowel (kappa = 0.405) showed moderate agreement. CONCLUSION The use of dual-camera analysis with CCE for the evaluation of the GI tract is feasible and detects more abnormalities when compared with single-camera analysis.

Application of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) to evaluate the whole gastrointestinal tract: a comparative study of single-camera and dual-camera analysis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was developed for the evaluation of colorectal pathology. In this study, our aim was to assess if a dual-camera analysis using CCE allows better evaluation of the whole gastrointestinal (GI) tract compared to a single-camera analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS We included 21 patients (12 males, mean age 56.20 years) submitted for a CCE examination. After standard colon preparation, the colon capsule endoscope (PillCam Colon™) was swallowed after reinitiation from its "sleep" mode. Four physicians performed the analysis: two reviewed both video streams at the same time (dual-camera analysis); one analyzed images from one side of the device ("camera 1"); and the other reviewed the opposite side ("camera 2"). We compared numbers of findings from different parts of the entire GI tract and level of agreement among reviewers. RESULTS A complete evaluation of the GI tract was possible in all patients. Dual-camera analysis provided 16% and 5% more findings compared to camera 1 and camera 2 analysis, respectively. Overall agreement was 62.7% (kappa = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.373-0.510). Esophageal (kappa = 0.611) and colorectal (kappa = 0.595) findings had a good level of agreement, while small bowel (kappa = 0.405) showed moderate agreement. CONCLUSION The use of dual-camera analysis with CCE for the evaluation of the GI tract is feasible and detects more abnormalities when compared with single-camera analysis.