Clare Schmidt

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: The youth mental health crisis in the United States continues to worsen, and research shows poor treatment outcomes for youth in mental health care. Despite the rise in predictive and personalized treatment, there has been a lack of research conducted with youth. Due to the complex developmental milestones of these periods, there is a need to better understand initial clinical presentation and predictors of treatment engagement to more effectively identify and tailor beneficial treatments. Objective: This quality improvement investigation sought to identify subgroups of clients attending remote intensive outpatient (IOP) treatment based on clinical acuity data at intake to determine the predictors of outcomes for clients who present in complex developmental periods and with co-occurring conditions. The identification of these subgroups was used to inform programmatic decisions within the remote IOP system for which this quality improvement analysis was conducted. Methods: Data were collected as part of ongoing quality improvement initiatives at a remote IOP for youth and young adults. Clients (N=2924) discharged between July 2021 and February 2023. A latent profile analysis was conducted using five indicators of clinical acuity at treatment entry, and the resulting profiles were assessed for associations with demographic predictors and treatment engagement outcomes. Results: Four profiles of clinical acuity emerged: a low acuity profile, characterized by minimal anxiety, depression, and self-harm, and three high acuity profiles defined by moderately severe depression and anxiety but differentiated by rates of self-harm. Age, gender, transgender identity, and sexual orientation were significantly related to profile membership. Clients identifying as sexual and gender marginalized populations were more likely to be classified into high acuity profiles relative to the low acuity profile, while race was unrelated to profile membership. Profile membership was significantly associated with treatment engagement: youth and young adults in the low acuity and high acuity + low self-harm profiles attended an average of 4-5 fewer treatment sessions relative to youth in the high acuity + moderate self-harm and high acuity + high self-harm profiles, ꭓ2(3) = 27.65, P < .001. Individuals in the high acuity + low self-harm profile completed treatment at a significantly lower rate relative to the other two high acuity profiles, ꭓ2(3) = 13.41, P = .004. Finally, those in the high acuity + high self-harm profile were significantly less likely to disengage early relative to youth in all other profiles, ꭓ2(3) = 71.12, P < .001. Conclusions: This investigation represents a novel application of distilling salient variables around which to proactively assign clients to clinical programming. Identifying subgroups that differentially engage in treatment is a critical first step towards personalizing treatment within complex populations. Clinical Trial: NA

Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other minoritized gender and sexual identities (LGBTQIA+) youth have disproportionately high levels of depression, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. In addition, LGBTQIA+ youth frequently report lower levels of satisfaction or comfort with their health care providers because of stigmatization, which may prevent continuation of care, yet there is a lack of mental health treatment and outcome research addressing these disparities. However, there is some indication that LGBTQIA+ individuals feel more comfortable with web-based formats, indicating that telehealth services may be beneficial for this population. Objective: This program evaluation explored the effectiveness of a remote intensive outpatient program with a curriculum tailored specifically to LGBTQIA+ youth with high-acuity depression, anxiety, and suicidality. This study sought to understand baseline acuity differences between LGBTQIA+ and non-LGBTQIA+ youth and young adult patients and to determine if there were differences in clinically significant improvement by subtypes within the LGBTQIA+ population following participation in LGBTQIA+-specific programming. Methods: Data were collected from intake and discharge outcome surveys measuring depression, suicidality, and nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) in 878 patients who attended at least six sessions of a remote intensive outpatient program for youth and young adults. Of these 878 clients, 551 (62.8%) were identified as having at least one LGBTQIA+ identity; they participated in an LGBTQIA+-adapted program of the general curriculum. Results: LGBTQIA+ patients had more clinically severe intake for depression, NSSI, and suicidal ideation. Nonbinary clients had greater NSSI within the LGBTQIA+ sample at intake than their binary counterparts, and transgender clients had significantly higher depressive scores at intake than their nontransgender counterparts. LGBTQIA+ patients demonstrated improvements in all outcomes from intake to discharge. The Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents depression scores improved from 18.15 at intake to 10.83 at discharge, representing a 41.5% reduction in depressive symptoms. Overall, 50.5% (149/295) of the LGBTQIA+ youth who endorsed passive suicidal ideation at intake no longer reported it at discharge, 72.1% (160/222) who endorsed active suicidal ideation at intake no longer reported it at discharge, and 55.1% (109/198) of patients who met the criteria for clinical NSSI no longer met the criteria at discharge. In the subgroup analysis, transgender patients were still 2 times more likely to report clinical NSSI at discharge. Conclusions: This program evaluation found substantial differences in rates of depression, NSSI, and suicidal ideation between LGBTQIA+ clients compared with their non-LGBTQIA+ counterparts. In addition, this evaluation showed a considerable decrease in symptoms when clients attended LGBTQIA+-affirming care. The findings provide support for the role of LGBTQIA+-specific programming to meet the elevated mental health needs of these youth and that more research is needed to understand barriers that may negatively affect transgender clients, specifically.

Background: Early treatment dropout among youths and young adults (28%-75%) puts them at risk for poorer outcomes. Family engagement in treatment is linked to lower dropout and better attendance in outpatient, in-person treatment. However, this has not been studied in intensive or telehealth settings. Objective: We aimed to examine whether family members’ participation in telehealth intensive outpatient (IOP) therapy for mental health disorders in youths and young adults is associated with patient’s treatment engagement. A secondary aim was to assess demographic factors associated with family engagement in treatment. Methods: Data were collected from intake surveys, discharge outcome surveys, and administrative data for patients who attended a remote IOP for youths and young adults, nationwide. Data included 1487 patients who completed both intake and discharge surveys and either completed or disengaged from treatment between December 2020 and September 2022. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample’s baseline differences in demographics, engagement, and participation in family therapy. Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were used to explore differences in engagement and treatment completion between patients with and those without family therapy. Binomial regression was used to explore significant demographic predictors of family therapy participation and treatment completion. Results: Patients with family therapy had significantly better engagement and treatment completion outcomes than clients with no family therapy. Youths and young adults with ≥1 family therapy session were significantly more likely to stay in treatment an average of 2 weeks longer (median 11 weeks vs 9 weeks) and to attend a higher percentage of IOP sessions (median 84.38% vs 75.00%). Patients with family therapy were more likely to complete treatment than clients with no family therapy (608/731, 83.2% vs 445/752, 59.2%; P<.001). Different demographic variables were associated with an increased likelihood of participating in family therapy, including younger age (odds ratio 1.3) and identifying as heterosexual (odds ratio 1.4). After controlling for demographic factors, family therapy remained a significant predictor of treatment completion, such that each family therapy session attended was associated with a 1.4-fold increase in the odds of completing treatment (95% CI 1.3-1.4). Conclusions: Youths and young adults whose families participate in any family therapy have lower dropout, greater length of stay, and higher treatment completion than those whose families do not participate in services in a remote IOP program. The findings of this quality improvement analysis are the first to establish a relationship between participation in family therapy and an increased engagement and retention in remote treatment for youths and young patients in IOP programing. Given the established importance of obtaining an adequate dosage of treatment, bolstering family therapy offerings is another tool that could contribute to the provision of care that better meets the needs of youths, young adults, and their families.

BACKGROUND The youth mental health crisis in the United States continues to worsen, and research has shown poor mental health treatment engagement. Despite the need for personalized engagement strategies, there is a lack of research involving youth. Due to complex youth developmental milestones, there is a need to better understand clinical presentation and factors associated with treatment engagement to effectively identify and tailor beneficial treatments. OBJECTIVE This quality improvement investigation sought to identify subgroups of clients attending a remote intensive outpatient program (IOP) based on clinical acuity data at intake, to determine the factors associated with engagement outcomes for clients who present in complex developmental periods and with cooccurring conditions. The identification of these subgroups was used to inform programmatic decisions within this remote IOP system. METHODS Data were collected as part of ongoing quality improvement initiatives at a remote IOP for youth and young adults. Participants included clients (N=2924) discharged between July 2021 and February 2023. A latent profile analysis was conducted using 5 indicators of clinical acuity at treatment entry, and the resulting profiles were assessed for associations with demographic factors and treatment engagement outcomes. RESULTS Among the 2924 participants, 4 profiles of clinical acuity were identified: a low-acuity profile (n=943, 32.25%), characterized by minimal anxiety, depression, and self-harm, and 3 high-acuity profiles defined by moderately severe depression and anxiety but differentiated by rates of self-harm (high acuity+low self-harm: n=1452, 49.66%; high acuity+moderate self-harm: n=203, 6.94%; high acuity+high self-harm: n=326, 11.15%). Age, gender, transgender identity, and sexual orientation were significantly associated with profile membership. Clients identified as sexually and gender-marginalized populations were more likely to be classified into high-acuity profiles than into the low-acuity profile (eg, for clients who identified as transgender, high acuity+low self-harm: odds ratio [OR] 2.07, 95% CI 1.35-3.18; P<.001; high acuity+moderate self-harm: OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.66-4.90; P<.001; high acuity+high self-harm: OR 3.67, 95% CI 2.45-5.51; P<.001). Race was unrelated to the profile membership. Profile membership was significantly associated with treatment engagement: youth and young adults in the low-acuity and high-acuity+low–self-harm profiles attended an average of 4 fewer treatment sessions compared with youth in the high-acuity+moderate–self-harm and high-acuity+high–self-harm profiles (ꭓ23=27.6, P<.001). Individuals in the high-acuity+low–self-harm profile completed treatment at a significantly lower rate relative to the other 2 high-acuity profiles (ꭓ23=13.4, P=.004). Finally, those in the high-acuity+high–self-harm profile were significantly less likely to disengage early relative to youth in all other profiles (ꭓ23=71.12, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS This investigation represents a novel application for identifying subgroups of adolescents and young adults based on clinical acuity data at intake to identify patterns in treatment engagement outcomes. Identifying subgroups that differentially engage in treatment is a critical first step toward targeting engagement strategies for complex populations.

BACKGROUND The youth mental health crisis in the United States continues to worsen, and research shows poor treatment outcomes for youth in mental health care. Despite the rise in predictive and personalized treatment, there has been a lack of research conducted with youth. Due to the complex developmental milestones of these periods, there is a need to better understand initial clinical presentation and predictors of treatment engagement to more effectively identify and tailor beneficial treatments. OBJECTIVE This quality improvement investigation sought to identify subgroups of clients attending remote intensive outpatient (IOP) treatment based on clinical acuity data at intake to determine the predictors of outcomes for clients who present in complex developmental periods and with co-occurring conditions. The identification of these subgroups was used to inform programmatic decisions within the remote IOP system for which this quality improvement analysis was conducted. METHODS Data were collected as part of ongoing quality improvement initiatives at a remote IOP for youth and young adults. Clients (N=2924) discharged between July 2021 and February 2023. A latent profile analysis was conducted using five indicators of clinical acuity at treatment entry, and the resulting profiles were assessed for associations with demographic predictors and treatment engagement outcomes. RESULTS Four profiles of clinical acuity emerged: a low acuity profile, characterized by minimal anxiety, depression, and self-harm, and three high acuity profiles defined by moderately severe depression and anxiety but differentiated by rates of self-harm. Age, gender, transgender identity, and sexual orientation were significantly related to profile membership. Clients identifying as sexual and gender marginalized populations were more likely to be classified into high acuity profiles relative to the low acuity profile, while race was unrelated to profile membership. Profile membership was significantly associated with treatment engagement: youth and young adults in the low acuity and high acuity + low self-harm profiles attended an average of 4-5 fewer treatment sessions relative to youth in the high acuity + moderate self-harm and high acuity + high self-harm profiles, ꭓ2(3) = 27.65, P < .001. Individuals in the high acuity + low self-harm profile completed treatment at a significantly lower rate relative to the other two high acuity profiles, ꭓ2(3) = 13.41, P = .004. Finally, those in the high acuity + high self-harm profile were significantly less likely to disengage early relative to youth in all other profiles, ꭓ2(3) = 71.12, P < .001. CONCLUSIONS This investigation represents a novel application of distilling salient variables around which to proactively assign clients to clinical programming. Identifying subgroups that differentially engage in treatment is a critical first step towards personalizing treatment within complex populations. CLINICALTRIAL NA

BACKGROUND Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other minoritized gender and sexual identities (LGBTQIA+) youth have disproportionately high levels of depression, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. In addition, LGBTQIA+ youth frequently report lower levels of satisfaction or comfort with their health care providers because of stigmatization, which may prevent continuation of care, yet there is a lack of mental health treatment and outcome research addressing these disparities. However, there is some indication that LGBTQIA+ individuals feel more comfortable with web-based formats, indicating that telehealth services may be beneficial for this population. OBJECTIVE This program evaluation explored the effectiveness of a remote intensive outpatient program with a curriculum tailored specifically to LGBTQIA+ youth with high-acuity depression, anxiety, and suicidality. This study sought to understand baseline acuity differences between LGBTQIA+ and non-LGBTQIA+ youth and young adult patients and to determine if there were differences in clinically significant improvement by subtypes within the LGBTQIA+ population following participation in LGBTQIA+-specific programming. METHODS Data were collected from intake and discharge outcome surveys measuring depression, suicidality, and nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) in 878 patients who attended at least six sessions of a remote intensive outpatient program for youth and young adults. Of these 878 clients, 551 (62.8%) were identified as having at least one LGBTQIA+ identity; they participated in an LGBTQIA+-adapted program of the general curriculum. RESULTS LGBTQIA+ patients had more clinically severe intake for depression, NSSI, and suicidal ideation. Nonbinary clients had greater NSSI within the LGBTQIA+ sample at intake than their binary counterparts, and transgender clients had significantly higher depressive scores at intake than their nontransgender counterparts. LGBTQIA+ patients demonstrated improvements in all outcomes from intake to discharge. The Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents depression scores improved from 18.15 at intake to 10.83 at discharge, representing a 41.5% reduction in depressive symptoms. Overall, 50.5% (149/295) of the LGBTQIA+ youth who endorsed passive suicidal ideation at intake no longer reported it at discharge, 72.1% (160/222) who endorsed active suicidal ideation at intake no longer reported it at discharge, and 55.1% (109/198) of patients who met the criteria for clinical NSSI no longer met the criteria at discharge. In the subgroup analysis, transgender patients were still 2 times more likely to report clinical NSSI at discharge. CONCLUSIONS This program evaluation found substantial differences in rates of depression, NSSI, and suicidal ideation between LGBTQIA+ clients compared with their non-LGBTQIA+ counterparts. In addition, this evaluation showed a considerable decrease in symptoms when clients attended LGBTQIA+-affirming care. The findings provide support for the role of LGBTQIA+-specific programming to meet the elevated mental health needs of these youth and that more research is needed to understand barriers that may negatively affect transgender clients, specifically.

BACKGROUND Early treatment dropout among youths and young adults (28%-75%) puts them at risk for poorer outcomes. Family engagement in treatment is linked to lower dropout and better attendance in outpatient, in-person treatment. However, this has not been studied in intensive or telehealth settings. OBJECTIVE We aimed to examine whether family members’ participation in telehealth intensive outpatient (IOP) therapy for mental health disorders in youths and young adults is associated with patient’s treatment engagement. A secondary aim was to assess demographic factors associated with family engagement in treatment. METHODS Data were collected from intake surveys, discharge outcome surveys, and administrative data for patients who attended a remote IOP for youths and young adults, nationwide. Data included 1487 patients who completed both intake and discharge surveys and either completed or disengaged from treatment between December 2020 and September 2022. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample’s baseline differences in demographics, engagement, and participation in family therapy. Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were used to explore differences in engagement and treatment completion between patients with and those without family therapy. Binomial regression was used to explore significant demographic predictors of family therapy participation and treatment completion. RESULTS Patients with family therapy had significantly better engagement and treatment completion outcomes than clients with no family therapy. Youths and young adults with ≥1 family therapy session were significantly more likely to stay in treatment an average of 2 weeks longer (median 11 weeks vs 9 weeks) and to attend a higher percentage of IOP sessions (median 84.38% vs 75.00%). Patients with family therapy were more likely to complete treatment than clients with no family therapy (608/731, 83.2% vs 445/752, 59.2%; P<.001). Different demographic variables were associated with an increased likelihood of participating in family therapy, including younger age (odds ratio 1.3) and identifying as heterosexual (odds ratio 1.4). After controlling for demographic factors, family therapy remained a significant predictor of treatment completion, such that each family therapy session attended was associated with a 1.4-fold increase in the odds of completing treatment (95% CI 1.3-1.4). CONCLUSIONS Youths and young adults whose families participate in any family therapy have lower dropout, greater length of stay, and higher treatment completion than those whose families do not participate in services in a remote IOP program. The findings of this quality improvement analysis are the first to establish a relationship between participation in family therapy and an increased engagement and retention in remote treatment for youths and young patients in IOP programing. Given the established importance of obtaining an adequate dosage of treatment, bolstering family therapy offerings is another tool that could contribute to the provision of care that better meets the needs of youths, young adults, and their families. CLINICALTRIAL