Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Nov 3;18(11):e0291067. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291067

From inpatient to outpatient mental health care: Protocol for a randomised feasibility trial of a care transition intervention for patients with depression and anxiety (the AMBITION-trial)

Justus Tönnies 1, Marayah Ayoub-Schreifeldt 1, Viola Schrader 1, Mechthild Hartmann 1, Beate Wild 1, Hans-Christoph Friederich 1, Markus W Haun 1,*
Editor: Dickens Akena2
PMCID: PMC10624294  PMID: 37922269

Abstract

Introduction

Despite guideline recommendations, inpatients with mental health disorders often do not receive appropriate treatment after discharge. This leads to high readmission rates, problems with medication adherence, increased risk of chronicity and suicide, and exclusion from the labour market accompanied by high individual and social costs. The causes are both system-related, such as limited treatment availability, and patient-related, such as ambivalent motivation to continue treatment and lack of information about available treatment options. The aim of this trial is to assess the feasibility of a Care Transition Intervention (CTI) which supports patients in the psychosocial follow-up treatment process after discharge from a psychotherapy ward.

Methods and analysis

Fifty patients with depression and/or anxiety who are treated as inpatients at a psychotherapy ward will be included and randomised into two groups with a 1:1 ratio. In the intervention group, patients will receive five CTI sessions with a Care Transition Navigator before and after discharge. The sessions will focus on individual patient support including a) identification and tackling of barriers to initiate follow-up treatment, b) reflection on the inpatient stay and individual progress, with focus on the helpful aspects and c) motivation of patients to organise and take up outpatient treatment. Patients in the control group will receive treatment-as-usual during discharge. We will evaluate the following outcomes: effectiveness of recruitment strategies, patient acceptance of randomisation, practicability of implemented workflows, feasibility of data collection, and clinical outcomes.

Introduction

For patients with mental illness, the transition from inpatient to outpatient care is crucial. However, it is at this point that the continuity of care is often interrupted [13]. Patients have issues finding their way in the commonly indicated outpatient follow-up treatment. This leads to several negative effects such as; high readmission rates, problems with medication adherence, increased risk of chronicity and suicide, and exclusion from the labour market accompanied by high individual and social costs [1, 38]. Reasons for not starting outpatient follow-up treatment are on a structural (low treatment capacities of mental health specialists) as well as individual level (ambivalent motivation towards further treatment, lack of access to information about available treatment options and resulting difficulties in navigating through the health care system [911]).

While the barriers at the individual level appear obstructive, they are modifiable in the short term [12]. Patients often need support to prepare for the time after discharge and to orient themselves in the complex system of outpatient psychosocial care. This is where Care Transition Interventions (CTIs) come in, by providing close support for individual patients at an early stage, i.e. before and shortly after discharge. CTIs can include coordination between the different service providers (integrated care) and motivate patients to seek follow-up treatment independently by taking a closer look at their disorder (patient emancipation through psychoeducation) [13]. Systematic reviews on CTIs show a potential benefit for patients regarding risk of readmissions and symptom severity [1417].

However, the literature shows that due to the high variability of a) intervention components, b) outcome measures, c) target groups/conditions, and d) methodological quality of the studies, there is not enough evidence to make a final recommendation for the use of CTIs. In addition, most of the included studies were conducted in the USA, where funding, organisational and health care structures differ from those in many other countries, e.g. those in Central Europe [18]. It is also not yet evident whether CTIs are cost-effective. The few studies that included cost-effectiveness analyses came to inconclusive and/or non-significant results. This is partly because the individual interventions were designed very differently (e.g. internet-based programme, peer support, clinician support) [1922]. Nevertheless, within these broad variations of interventions components seem to be consistently effective. Therefore, we combined these components and developed a CTI to support patients with depressive and/or anxiety disorders at the transition from inpatient to outpatient psychosocial care.

To prepare the ground for a future effectiveness trial, we will conduct a randomised trial assessing the feasibility of the study procedures and the acceptability of a CTI conducted by a Care Transition Navigator (CTN) within the German health care system.

Methods and analysis

Study setting

The main setting of this feasibility trial are German hospitals in Southwest Germany (Federal State of Baden-Wuerttemberg). Inpatients will be recruited from mental healthcare wards and day clinics in German hospitals, where, patients with a wide range of mental disorders, from depression and anxiety disorders to eating disorders and obsessive-compulsive disorders receive treatment with a focus on intensive psychotherapy.

Study design

This study is an individually randomised feasibility trial. After the inclusion of patients, the individual intervention period will be three months; for the total recruitment time 6 months are planned. There will be two main measurements; a baseline assessment just prior to randomisation and a post assessment three months after inclusion. There will be two follow-up measurements at six and nine months after inclusion which focus on the medium-term effects. Patient recruitment August 2022 and will probably be completed in September 2023. Data collection will probably be completed by May 2024. The study protocol is reported and implemented according to Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (S1 File) [23].

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

CTIs have not been evaluated or even implemented in German routine mental healthcare. Indeed, in reviews on transitional interventions not a single trial from Germany was included [15, 16]. Hence, we selected depression and anxiety as highly prevalent mental health disorders with high burden of disease to pilot the CTI in German mental healthcare. Inclusion criteria require inpatients to 1) have a recommendation by the case leading therapist on the ward to start an outpatient psychosocial follow-up treatment, 2) be treated for at least a moderate depressive and/or anxiety disorder (additional comorbid mental health disorders allowed), 3) agree to participate in the study by written informed consent, 4) be capable of giving consent and 5) be 18 years or older. Exclusion criteria are as follows: 1) planned resumption of outpatient psychotherapy after the inpatient stay which has been initiated before admission, 2) acute psychotic symptoms, e.g., persecutory delusions and/or thought insertion, 3) severe cognitive impairment or dementia, 4) significant hearing and/or visual impairment, 5) pregnancy in the ≥ 2nd trimester, and 6) insufficient German language proficiency. For this pilot trial, we aimed for minimizing the rate of loss-to-follow-up. Thus, we excluded pregnant women who may not have been able to complete follow-up assessments due to giving childbirth. We will drop this exclusion criterion in the main trial. Before enrolling patients, we will regularly check with providers having delivered inpatient treatment if a therapeutic dialogue was possible and whether language proficiency had turned out as a problem during inpatient treatment. To ensure the correct assessment of inclusion criteria, we will work closely with the case leading therapist on the respective ward / day clinic to record the recommendation for follow-up treatment and the diagnosis for which the patient was admitted. All other inclusion and exclusion criteria will be assessed by a study team member as part of the initial screening process.

Study procedures

Prior to patient recruitment, we will meet with the hospital staff and introduce the study. We will precisely outline, how each member of the ward team will be involved and how they will guide the patients through the study during the inpatient stay. Additionally, during the preparatory visit we will address remaining questions and provide the team with a study handbook that includes a comprehensive description of patient inclusion criteria. The case leading therapists on the respective ward / day clinic will then start recruiting patients by introducing the study to them during regular therapy sessions. We anticipate that the therapeutic alliance with the case leading therapist will promote patients’ willingness to participate in the study. If a patient is interested in participating, they will provide written informed consent and fill out the baseline questionnaire. Then patient’s names will be pseudonymized and patients will be randomly allocated to the intervention or the control condition. The study flow is depicted in Fig 1 and the study schedule is shown in Fig 2.

Fig 1. Study flowchart.

Fig 1

Fig 2. Study schedule.

Fig 2

1 Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS) [24], 2 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) [25], 3 Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS-G) [26], 4 Somatic Symptom Disorder–B Criteria Scale (SSD-12) [27].

Before the intervention starts, the CTN will attend a two hour-training session, during which they will be familiarised with strategies and practicalities pertaining to organising follow-up treatments for patients with depression and anxiety. We will also train the CTN in motivational interviewing and psychoeducation. Using motivational interviewing, we aim to encourage and empower the patients to take up follow-up treatment.

Study conceptual framework

The AMBITION intervention targets the transition between an inpatient / day clinic stay and an outpatient follow-up treatment (Fig 3) and accounts for the five domains for factors influencing treatment adherence established by the World Health Organization (WHO): social and economic, healthcare system, therapy-related, patient-related, and condition-related [28]. The intervention unfolds across these factors by tightening coordination between inpatient and community mental healthcare.

Fig 3. Schematic illustrating the care transition intervention and treatment-as-usual.

Fig 3

We developed the CTI based on a thorough review of the literature (MEDLINE and Google Scholar with the search term “mental health treatment engagement" and no filters) finalized on February 8th, 2022. The literature was reviewed by a group of experts of different backgrounds (psychiatrist, epidemiologist, psychologist). Specifically, we selected the intervention components with respect to their potential effectiveness for increasing mental health treatment engagement accounting for the five WHO domains for factors influencing treatment engagement and adherence (see Table 1 for details).

Table 1. Study conceptual framework.

WHO Domain for Factors Influencing Treatment Engagement and Adherence AMBITION Intervention
Specific Targets Strategies or techniques
Social and Economic Socioeconomic status Readily accessible technology-facilitated intervention
Employment and education Low-threshold intervention compatible with work- and family-related obligations
Health literacy Use of well comprehensible educational material and graphical instructions
Social support Provision of emotional support
Treatment costs Intervention at no cost (covered by funding in the pilot stage)
Racial, ethnic, gender, and cultural background Attentiveness for diversity and gender-specific healthcare-seeking behaviours
Healthcare System Shortage of community mental health services Active support in seeking treatment
Fragmentation of care Intervention at the time of great risk for discontinuity of care
Patient-centred care Fostering informed conversations between providers and patients
Therapy-related Complexity Psychoeducation on potential types of treatment and treatment duration
Previous treatment failures Exploration of previous treatment experiences (e.g., summary of inpatient / day clinic stay)
Unintended consequences and adverse effects Exploration of potential treatment adverse effects in the past
Patient-related Health beliefs Deepening the understanding for the respective mental health disorder
Perceived barriers Systematic identification and optimised removal of barriers
Treatment engagement-related needs Behavioural strategies for improving treatment engagement
Condition-related (depressive disorders) Feelings of hopelessness Fostering change expectancy
Loss of interest and/or pleasure Behavioural activation
Rumination Behavioural activation

Intervention

We will not provide psychotherapy focused on direct symptom improvement during the intervention aim of the CTI is to empower and support the patient to take up follow-up treatment (e.g. seeking a guideline-based adequate follow-up care in the form of remission-stabilising maintenance therapy). The CTI will be delivered by a CTN and is composed of core components and optional components. Core components have been shown to be effective in increasing mental health treatment engagement in previous work, which will be the primary outcome in sufficiently powered confirmatory trial after this pilot. Hence, core components are compulsory parts of the intervention. The optional components will be used as needed by the CTN to provide more individualised guidance and support to each patient. The type and design of the outpatient psychosocial follow-up treatment will primarily be based on the recommendations of the case leading therapist on the ward / day clinic. The first core component is the identification and subsequent addressing of barriers that prevent the patient from taking up an outpatient psychosocial follow-up treatment [29, 30]. The CTN will use motivational interviewing and psychoeducation to encourage the patient to make and keep appointments with outpatient mental health services. The patient, supported by the CTN, will develop a summary of the inpatient stay from her or his own perspective. This enables the CTN to identify both challenges and achievements from the patient’s point of view and to address the respective challenges more precisely in further joint work that includes emotional support for the patient (core component 2) [31]. For example, the type of outpatient follow-up treatment can be adapted based on factors which have already contributed to improvements for the patient during their inpatient stay. In preparation for the intervention, the CTN will receive extensive study-related training in motivational interviewing, diversity, and gender-specific healthcare-seeking behaviours and social work topics (core component 3) [32, 33]. The CTN will be a research assistant with a bachelor’s degree in psychology. These steps will take place during the first joint appointment (CTI session) before the patient is discharged.

After discharge, further CTI sessions will take place between the patient and the CTN, during which barriers on the patient’s side will be continuously identified and addressed. Additionally, if necessary the CTN will reflect on the ambivalence towards follow-up treatment with the patient, to build motivation. In the first month after discharge, there will be two CTI sessions; in the months two and three after discharge, there will be one CTI session per month. If a patient successfully takes up outpatient follow-up treatment before the fifth CTI session, at least one further CTI session will be offered for joint final reflection and assessment of the sustainability of follow-up treatment. If the patient needs more structuring of the intervention, a patient-centred written brief discharge plan will be jointly developed by the patient and the CTN. This will help to (1) clarify the need and (2) the desired design of a follow-up treatment, (3) identify possible barriers, (4) identify patient’s areas/problems in particular need of support by the CTN, and (5) schedule the session dates between patient and CTN (1st month two sessions, 2nd and 3rd month one session each). To support and motivate the patient, the CTN can screen for psychosocial services and treatment possibilities in the vicinity of the patient’s home. Furthermore, the patient will be motivated to contact the general practitioner after discharge and to inform him/her about the further course of treatment. Further components for support and motivation can vary individually depending on the symptom severity and the resources of the patient, but will include components of the following spectrum: systematic reminders about doctor’s appointments and medication intake, screening for suicidal ideation, evaluation of already known and/or newly emerging barriers, psychoeducation regarding the handling of mental disorders and coping strategies and behavioural activation (maintaining a positive attitude, solution orientation, stimulation of self-help). These optional components have been shown to be effective in several comparable studies [14, 17]. The CTI sessions will be conducted via a secure (i.e., encrypted), web-based videoconferencing platform on a subscription basis (arztkonsultation ak GmbH) and will last between 30 and 60 minutes. Subscription fees are covered by the trial funding. No fee will apply for patients. In routine care in Germany, the use of teleconferencing systems is covered by the statutory health insurance. During the intervention period, the CTN will attend a case supervision session led by a senior physician every two weeks, where all patients will be discussed. In particular, it will be discussed how to deal with hard-to-reach and less adherent patients to successfully implement the transition to outpatient psychosocial follow-up treatment in this group as well.

Control condition

Patients allocated to the control group will receive the usual support by their case leading therapist on the ward in their search for outpatient psychosocial follow-up treatment (e.g. by being given contact details of outpatient psychotherapists in the vicinity and motivated to make contact during the further course of inpatient treatment). This will also include participating in a follow-up supportive group provided by the inpatient staff (five sessions for each patients) after patients have been discharged. This open group meets once a week to discuss problems in organising follow-up treatment and to provide rather general than individualised support.

Sample size

In this study, we aim to establish feasibility of a full trial and not to provide evidence of a statistically significant difference concerning effectiveness between the two treatment conditions. Therefore, we did not perform a formal sample size calculation [3436]. Instead, our target sample size of N = 50 participants is based on the recommendations for conducting pilot and feasibility trials as described by the National Institute for Health Research [37].

Recruitment

Patients will be recruited during their inpatient / day clinic stay in mental healthcare departments of German Hospitals. Suitable patients will be approached by their case leading therapist on the ward / day clinic during the regular therapy sessions three weeks prior to discharge. Here they will be informed about the study and provided with the study documents, consisting of information leaflet and the consent form in duplicate. If the patient agrees to receive further information, they will have a meeting with the CTN two weeks prior to discharge. During this meeting the CTN will 1) describe the study procedures to the patient, 2) address any remaining questions the patient may have, 3) obtain written informed consent, 4) collect the patient’s baseline data (either by filling out the questionnaire or through an online assessment), 5) allocate the patient to one of the two study conditions via an online randomisation platform, 6) inform the patient of the outcome of the randomisation, and, 7) if randomised to the intervention condition, arrange a first appointment (CTI session), which must still take place during the inpatient stay. If inclusion in the study is not possible, this will be documented with the reason and the patient’s age and gender. The CTN informs the case leading therapist on the ward of the outcome result of the randomisation.

Randomisation

After obtaining informed consent, patients will be randomly allocated to one of the two study conditions (treatment-as-usual, TAU vs. care transition intervention) in a 1:1 ratio. To ensure a seamless inclusion process, the CTN will conduct the randomisation during the initial recruitment meeting with the patient and subsequently inform the patient of the outcome. Concealment of the treatment sequence up to allocation will be assured via a secure web-based randomisation system (Randomizer, https://randomizer.at) operated by a data manager, not involved in the patient recruitment, centrally at the Department of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University. The treatment sequence is generated through a computer-generated sequence of random numbers. Randomisation will be stratified by depression and anxiety symptom severity at baseline as measured with the PHQ-ADS (three levels: minimal/mild, moderate, severe).

Measurements

This study will assess the feasibility and acceptance of both the CTI and study procedures, such as data collection, as it would occur in a sufficiently powered effectiveness trial. We will, therefore, evaluate if the procedures are appropriate for this specific patient group as well as collect data on clinical endpoints.

Patients’ health status

For patients, the baseline assessment will take place right before randomisation. This includes variables on sociodemographic information, patient’s history of outpatient as well as inpatient mental health treatment and history of psychopharmacotherapy. Data will be collected using the validated questionnaires: Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS) [24], 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) [25], Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS-G) [26], Somatic Symptom Disorder–B Criteria Scale (SSD-12) [27]. Since the aim of this study is to enable patients to organise their treatment following an inpatient stay and ideally take up outpatient psychosocial treatment, we will comprehensively record service use regarding such treatment options. Post and follow-up measurements will be conducted three, six and nine months respectively after study inclusion and will include the same validated questionnaires and service use assessments as at baseline. At this pilot stage, we will not account for the intensity of the treatment received prior to enrolment, since we are primarily interested in feasibility outcomes. However, in the sufficiently powered main trial, we will assess this variable applying the Questionnaire for the Assessment of Medical and non-Medical Resource Utilisation in Mental Disorders (FIMPsy) [38]. Research assistants will conduct the post and follow-up measurement in Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATIs) with the participants. The study schedule is depicted in Fig 3 in line with the SPIRIT guidelines.

Feasibility

In order to evaluate feasibility from the participants’ perspective, we will conduct semi-guided qualitative interviews with patients from the intervention group as well as with the CTN. The acceptability of both study and intervention procedures will be evaluated by assessing whether the intervention and study procedures have been agreeable as well as logistically and technically practical [39]. A semi-guided interview with the CTN will give a more detailed insight into provider’s perspective regarding feasibility and appropriateness of the CTI.

Outcomes

As this is a feasibility trail, there will be no hypotheses or statistical testing. Therefore, effects of the intervention are not to be expected in this small sample. Instead, we expect that a) our trial design (incl. study procedures such as recruitment strategy, data collection procedures, randomisation and logistic aspects) is suitable and b) that the intervention is feasible in this population of inpatients and at this specific time point during treatment, the transition from inpatient to outpatient care.

The feasibility of a subsequent large-scale RCT for patients at the transition from inpatient to outpatient care will be determined by assessing the following outcomes and aspects [34]:

  • ■ recruitment strategy’s sufficiency and efficiency for both groups

  • ■ adherence for intervention group

  • ■ feasibility of study procedures (e.g., patient and provider acceptance of randomisation and outcome measurements)

  • ■ intervention procedure feasibility (CTN documentation, patient acceptance of CTI, patient safety)

To estimate the sufficiency and efficiency of the recruitment strategies, we will calculate the recruitment yield, i.e., number randomized per number screened, and the consent rate, i.e., number randomized per number eligible. We will record retention rates and reasons for non-participation or dropping out. Adherence will be determined by the ratio of scheduled and actually conducted CTI session. Concerning documentation, after every CTI session, the CTN will systematically document which elements of the intervention were used in the respective session. Patients experience relapses will have full and free access to all levels of mental healthcare which covered under the statutory health insurance in Germany. We will approach all patients systematically for post assessments regardless of whether they have received a relapse to minimize missing data for the follow-up. To evaluate process outcomes on the overall practicability of the intervention and the related study procedures, we will draw on qualitative data generated by in-depth interviewing of patients and the CTN.

Data analysis

In order to assure data quality, we will 1) use a password protected online survey tool (Enterprise Feedback Suite (EFS) Survey, Questback GmbH) during the data collections and enter data from the paper questionnaire there, 2) enforce data integrity using forced or multiple-choice items wherever possible, and 3) ensure that only two members of the study team will have access to the data as well as the participants identifying information and will prepare it prior to data analysis. Quantitative data on clinical outcomes along with information on health service use will be analysed using descriptive statistics (absolute and relative frequencies, measures of central tendency, and measures of variability). We will not test any hypotheses or perform any statistical tests, but rather will assess the feasibility of a following large-scale RCT. We will report various dimensions regarding feasibility, e.g., overall recruitment yield (number randomised per number screened), the recruitment rate (number recruited and randomised per general practice per month), consent rate (number randomised per number eligible), and loss to follow-up. To illustrate participant flow, we will report results in a CONSORT diagram [40]. We will describe patients’ reasons for non-participation as well as conduct a non-responder analysis. Qualitative data stemming from the process evaluation (i.e., interviews with patients and CTN) will be analysed utilizing the thematic analysis approach deriving key themes bottom-up. For the descriptive quantitative analysis, we will use R (version 4.3.1 or higher).

To gain a vaster understanding of the context in which the outcomes of the RCT developed, we will conduct a process evaluation consistent of qualitative semi-guided interviews with the patients and CTNs [41]. We will purposefully sample participants concerning hard-to-reach groups (oversampling men and patients with chronic and multimorbid conditions) The interviews will focus on barriers as well as facilitators of the model. Process data will be collected after the intervention, to gain insight into the various intervention stages [42]. The top-down themes of for the thematic analysis of the interview data will be 1) quality of implementation, (2) causal mechanisms/pathways, and (3) contextual influences on the implementation of the intervention. Coders executing the qualitative analysis will not be part of the delivery of the intervention nor analyze the qualitative data prior to knowing the trial outcomes.

For the thematic analysis of the qualitative data we will use MAXQDA 2020 or higher. All study publications will align with recommendations of the respective statements for randomised trials (CONSORT [40]) and qualitative research [43].

Missing values

During the data collection process, we will try to keep the number of missing values at a minimum by carrying out most assessments during same-room meetings or by making use of CATIs (i.e. post measurements and follow-up). To reduce missing values during the collection of baseline-data, we will assist patients where necessary, and check the completeness of each patients’ baseline questionnaire before randomisation. We will consider the occurrence of missing values despite these two procedures as important findings in the context of this feasibility trial. This could bring forth important information on the acceptance and appropriateness of the questionnaires used.

Patient and public involvement

This protocol was drafted without patient involvement and patients were not invited to contribute to the writing or editing of this document for readability or accuracy. However, as part of the feasibility and acceptance assessment we will conduct semi-structured interviews with all patients in the intervention condition. Interviews will focus on five main questions (What was your experience with the care transition intervention like? What worked out for you? What did not go well? Would you engage in the intervention again and/or recommend it to others? Why? Why not? Do you have any suggestions for improving the intervention? Which logistical problems did you experience? If applicable, how were they dealt with?). At the end of the interview, we will invite all patients to be systematically included in the refinement of the intervention. This could include development of the procedures and materials of a consecutive sufficiently powered effectiveness trial. We will align patient and public involvement with current guidelines [44].

Ethics and dissemination

Publishing pilot protocols ensures consistency between the published protocol and published objectives, methods, and results. Moreover, published pilot protocols increase the transparency concerning details of the planned study and the likelihood of collaboration between groups of researchers [45]. Only patients who have given their written consent by signing the corresponding form will be included in the study. They will receive detailed information about the study and their right to withdraw without giving reasons through an information sheet and a comprehensive introduction by the CTN, in advance. Afterwards they will have the possibility to ask the principal investigator any questions they may have. Before the intervention starts, the CTN will attend a training session, led by an experienced mental health specialist to be adequately prepared to conduct the intervention. Moreover, the CTN will be supported and guided by a biweekly supervision which will be led by a senior consultant both in general and psychosomatic medicine from the Department of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Heidelberg University. We do not expect major relevant risks for participants, since the intervention’s aim is to support patients in the organisation of treatment following an inpatient stay rather than providing a psychotherapeutic intervention. Completing assessments will be of reasonable time burden for the participants and they will have the possibility to receive assistance through the process. The data collection and storage will be conducted in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) ensuring a high level of data safety and a conscientious handling of all patient data. Ethical approval for the study has been granted from the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg Ethics Committee, Reference S-259/2022. We will publish and present key findings on conferences and in internationally recognised peer reviewed journals. This feasibility trial will prepare the ground for a sufficiently powered randomised trial. The trial registration number is: DRKS00029381.

Discussion

Since the transition between the inpatient and outpatient mental health care sector is often a breaking point in the continuity of care, it is crucial to develop and evaluate interventions that help patients in this process. While we agree that some evidence for the effectiveness of TIs is available, particularly for veterans with serious mental illness treated within the VA system, our trial follows a new approach in that we apply a video-based approach that features (1) systematic identification of barriers for follow-up treatment, (2) highlighting patients’ problem-solving resources, and (3) motivational interviewing to keep patients engaged in care. In this respect, our intervention is more structured und builds on evidence-based components compared to those implemented in previous work. In addition, our intervention uses relatively low resources by employing a research assistant as CTN rather than a clinician or social worker. This may provide a low threshold of implementation for institutions. Particularly, these “bridging” interventions, which include pre-discharge as well as post-discharge components have showed promising results [19, 46].

Supporting information

S1 File. SPIRIT-checklist.

(DOCX)

S2 File. PLOS ONE clinical studies checklist.

(DOCX)

S3 File. Ethics committee study protocol original.

(PDF)

S4 File. Ethics committee study protocol translation.

(PDF)

S5 File. Ethics committee approval original.

(PDF)

S6 File. Ethics committee approval translation.

(PDF)

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

This study (MW, MAS, and VS) supported by the Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care in Germany (Grant number: D.10054158). The funders did not and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among Patients in the Medicare Fee-for-Service Program. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1418–28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0803563 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lien L. Are readmission rates influenced by how psychiatric services are organized? Nord J Psychiatry 2002;56:23–8. doi: 10.1080/08039480252803873 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wiegand HF, Saam J, Marschall U, et al. Challenges in the Transition from In-Patient to Out-Patient Treatment in Depression. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2020;117:472–9. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Olfson M, Marcus SC, Doshi JA. Continuity of Care After Inpatient Discharge of Patients With Schizophrenia in the Medicaid Program: A Retrospective Longitudinal Cohort Analysis. J Clin Psychiatry 2010;71:0–0. doi: 10.4088/JCP.10m05969yel [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Duncan I, Fitzner K, Zhao E, et al. Patient Post-discharge Transitions and Inpatient Readmissions Impose Costly Burdens for Employers and Carriers. Popul Health Manag 2021;24:722–6. doi: 10.1089/pop.2021.0037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nordentoft M, Mortensen PB, Pedersen CB. Absolute risk of suicide after first hospital contact in mental disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2011;68:1058–64. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Simon GE, VonKorff M. Suicide mortality among patients treated for depression in an insured population. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:155–60. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Burns J, Flynn S, Lowe R, et al. The National Confidential Inquiry into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness. 2017. https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=37580 [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Storm M, Husebø AML, Thomas EC, et al. Coordinating Mental Health Services for People with Serious Mental Illness: A Scoping Review of Transitions from Psychiatric Hospital to Community. Adm Policy Ment Health 2019;46:352–67. doi: 10.1007/s10488-018-00918-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wright N, Rowley E, Chopra A, et al. From admission to discharge in mental health services: a qualitative analysis of service user involvement. Health Expect 2016;19:367–76. doi: 10.1111/hex.12361 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Morden NE, Mistler LA, Weeks WB, et al. Health Care for Patients with Serious Mental Illness: Family Medicine’s Role. J Am Board Fam Med 2009;22:187–95. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2009.02.080059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nolan P, Bradley E, Brimblecombe N. Disengaging from acute inpatient psychiatric care: a description of service users’ experiences and views. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2011;18:359–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2010.01675.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Xiao S, Tourangeau A, Widger K, et al. Discharge planning in mental healthcare settings: A review and concept analysis. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2019;28:816–32. doi: 10.1111/inm.12599 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hegedüs A, Kozel B, Richter D, et al. Effectiveness of Transitional Interventions in Improving Patient Outcomes and Service Use After Discharge From Psychiatric Inpatient Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Psychiatry 2020;10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Vigod SN, Kurdyak PA, Dennis C-L, et al. Transitional interventions to reduce early psychiatric readmissions in adults: systematic review. Br J Psychiatry 2013;202:187–94. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.115030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tyler N, Wright N, Waring J. Interventions to improve discharge from acute adult mental health inpatient care to the community: systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Health Serv Res 2019;19. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4658-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Steffen S, Kösters M, Becker T, et al. Discharge planning in mental health care: a systematic review of the recent literature. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2009;120:1–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01373.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ridic G, Gleason S, Ridic O. Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and Canada. Mater Socio-Medica 2012;24:112–20. doi: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Forchuk C, Martin M-L, Chan YL, et al. Therapeutic relationships: from psychiatric hospital to community. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2005;12:556–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2005.00873.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Moessner M, Bauer S, Özer F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of an Internet-based aftercare intervention after inpatient treatment in a psychosomatic hospital. Psychother Res 2014;24:496–503. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2013.845919 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Simpson A, Flood C, Rowe J, et al. Results of a pilot randomised controlled trial to measure the clinical and cost effectiveness of peer support in increasing hope and quality of life in mental health patients discharged from hospital in the UK. BMC Psychiatry 2014;14:30. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-14-30 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chiverton P, Tortoretti D, LaForest M, et al. Bridging the gap between psychiatric hospitalization and community care: Cost and quality outcomes. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc 1999;5:46–53. doi: 10.1016/S1078-3903(99)90019-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013;346:e7586. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kroenke K, Baye F, Lourens SG. Comparative validity and responsiveness of PHQ-ADS and other composite anxiety-depression measures. J Affect Disord 2019;246:437–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.12.098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of Scales and Preliminary Tests of Reliability and Validity. Med Care 1996;34:220–33. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cavelti M, Wirtz M, Corrigan P, et al. Recovery assessment scale: Examining the factor structure of the German version (RAS-G) in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Eur Psychiatry 2017;41:60–7. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Toussaint A, Löwe B, Brähler E, et al. The Somatic Symptom Disorder—B Criteria Scale (SSD-12): Factorial structure, validity and population-based norms. J Psychosom Res 2017;97:9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.03.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hadler A, Sutton S, Osterberg L, editors. The Wiley handbook of healthcare treatment engagement: theory, research, and clinical practice. Hoboken, NJ:: Wiley-Blackwell; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dixon LB, Holoshitz Y, Nossel I. Treatment engagement of individuals experiencing mental illness: review and update: •••. World Psychiatry 2016;15:13–20. doi: 10.1002/wps.20306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Goetter EM, Herbert JD, Forman EM, et al. An open trial of videoconference-mediated exposure and ritual prevention for obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Anxiety Disord 2014;28:460–2. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Interian A, Lewis-Fernández R, Dixon LB. Improving treatment engagement of underserved u. S. Racial-ethnic groups: a review of recent interventions. Psychiatr Serv 2013;64:212–22. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201100136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dean S, Britt E, Bell E, et al. Motivational interviewing to enhance adolescent mental health treatment engagement: a randomized clinical trial. Psychol Med 2016;46:1961–9. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716000568 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Seal KH, Abadjian L, McCamish N, et al. A randomized controlled trial of telephone motivational interviewing to enhance mental health treatment engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2012;34:450–9. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2012.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, et al. Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework. PLOS ONE 2016;11:e0150205. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Thabane L, Ma J, Chu R, et al. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Richards DA, Hallberg IR, editors. Complex Interventions in Health. An Overview of Research Methods. New York, NY:: Routledge; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.National Institute for Health Research. Justify sample size for a feasibility study. RDS Lond. https://www.rds-london.nihr.ac.uk/resources/justify-sample-size-for-a-feasibility-study/ (accessed 2 Jul 2021).
  • 38.Grupp H, König H-H, Riedel-Heller S, et al. FIMPsy–Fragebogen zur Inanspruchnahme medizinischer und nicht medizinischer Versorgungsleistungen bei psychischen Erkrankungen: Entwicklung und Verwendung. Psychiatr Prax 2018;45:87–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Brown FW. Telepsychiatry and Health Technologies: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals. Am Psychiatric Assoc 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:663–94. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015;350:h1258. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Atkins S, Odendaal W, Leon N, et al. Qualitative process evaluation for complex interventions. In: Richards DA, Hallberg IR, editors. Complex Interventions in Health. An Overview of Research Methods. New York, NY:: Routledge; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349–57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.INVOLVE. Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh, UK:: INVOLVE; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Thabane L, Lancaster G. A guide to the reporting of protocols of pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2019;5:37. doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0423-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kasprow WJ, Rosenheck RA. Outcomes of Critical Time Intervention Case Management of Homeless Veterans After Psychiatric Hospitalization. Psychiatr Serv 2007;58:929–35. doi: 10.1176/ps.2007.58.7.929 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dickens Akena

5 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-11362From inpatient to outpatient mental health care: protocol for a randomised feasibility trial of a care transition intervention for patients with depression and anxiety (the AMBITION-trial)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Haun,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 19 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dickens Akena, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- Haun MW, Tönnies J, Graue L, et alMental health specialist video consultations for patients with somatic symptom disorder in primary care: protocol for a randomised feasibility trial (the VISION trial)BMJ Open 2022;12:e058150. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058150

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

5. We note that the original protocol that you have uploaded as a Supporting Information file contains an institutional logo. As this logo is likely copyrighted, we ask that you please remove it from this file and upload an updated version upon resubmission.

Additional Editor Comments:

Good day. I have received comments from the reviewers.  The article needs some tweaking before it is ready for publication. The authors need to respond to each of the comments raised by all the reviewers

Kind regards

Dickens Akena,

Academic Editor

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Important note: This review pertains only to ‘statistical aspects’ of the study and so ‘clinical aspects’ [like medical importance, relevance of the study, ‘clinical significance and implication(s)’ of the whole study, etc.] are to be evaluated [should be assessed] separately/independently. Further please note that any ‘statistical review’ is generally done under the assumption that (such) study specific methodological [as well as execution] issues are perfectly taken care of by the investigator(s). This review is not an exception to that and so does not cover clinical aspects {however, seldom comments are made only if those issues are intimately / scientifically related & intermingle with ‘statistical aspects’ of the study}. Agreed that ‘statistical methods’ are used as just tools here, however, they are vital part of methodology [and so should be given due importance]. I look at the manuscript in/with statistical view point, other reviewer(s) look(s) at it with different angle so that in totality the review is very comprehensive. However, there should be efforts from authors side to improve (may be by taking clues from reviewer’s comments). Therefore, please do not limit the revision only (with respect) to comments made here.

COMMENTS: Although this manuscript is well drafted [and the study is excellent with respect to most of the aspects (This study being ‘pilot’ in nature, sample size is not a big issue anyway)], I have few observations/concerns (different opinion) which are given below:

Since (as you have mentioned) in ‘Introduction’ section that “Systematic reviews on CTIs show a potential benefit for patients regarding risk of readmissions and symptom severity [14–17]”, and later in ‘Intervention’ section you also state that “optional components have been shown to be effective in several comparable studies [14,17].”, I wonder if there is really a need of such a ‘feasibility trial’? [particularly because the quoted studies are published in reputed journals and after looking at the competence/knowledge of the topic/preparation of the authors]. They could have planned a larger main/final phase-III trial (as said sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial) as well, I guess.

In my knowledge the primary purpose of publishing a research protocol (of main study/trial) is a means to allow the academic community to evaluate whether subsequent analysis and results are in line with the investigators' initial objectives. Additionally, it informs the academic community on ongoing research and may avoid duplication of work. Agreed that making study protocols publicly available has the benefit of disseminating the most contemporary ideas with respect to study design and data analysis. However, the purpose/intention of ‘protocol for a pilot/feasibility study/trial’ is/are not known {at least to me and may be to many others as well}. Will these learned authors may please explain?

[Note that the statement “Patient recruitment will start in July 2022 and will probably be completed in July 2023” in this manuscript prompted me to write the above as this excellent study will get delayed].

Except these minor points, the article is acceptable. However, mind you that as pointed out in ‘important note’ above “This review pertains only to ‘statistical aspects’ of the study and so ‘clinical aspects’ should be assessed separately/independently. ‘Minor Revision’ is recommended.

Reviewer #2: The authors provide a protocol for their CTI trial aimed at enhancing use of mental health services after discharge. There are a few comments which could be considered;

1. It is not clear how many psychotherapy sessions the patients will have had prior to enrollment during admission. It is possible that varying numbers of sessions may affect the outcomes.

2. The core components of the intervention are mentioned. However there no studies provided to show that these components are essential for the outcomes they are measuring (for the optional components, some citations were provided).

3. The CTI sessions will be provided via a web based teleconference system that is paid for. Won't this be a barrier for some patients who may not have the system or how to use it?

4. Sufficiency and efficiency are some of the outcomes being measured. How will these two be analyzed?

Reviewer #3: The authors address an important aspect of mental health services and provide a rationale for bridging inpatient and outpatient care, however , the rationale for the chosen illness conditions (Depression and Anxiety) is not provided. This makes it difficult to appreciate why CTI (the intervention ) should be the intervention of choice.

Of note, CTI is a multicomponent intervention but the detail on how it has been developed , and what the effective components are (core and optional ) would help one to appreciate how CTI is likely to be effective. How will the patients be involved in the development of the intervention like is stated in the protocol (patient and public involvement) ?

A schematic or diagram illustrating CTI (and the treatment as usual for the control arm) would help explain the two study treatments under comparison.

A study conceptual framework should also be included in the protocol.

It is not clear to me how patient recruitment will start in July 2022 and end in 2023 yet the protocol is under review in July 2023; why is pregnancy in the 2nd and 3rd trimester part of the exclusion criteria? And how will insufficient German language proficiency be determined ?

With respect to the intervention; how will relapses be handled in the study?

How will the assessors who will collect data be blinded to the treatment allocation? this was not clear,

The study seems like it will use a mixed methods approach but there is limited detail on qualitative methods, specifically the interviews; do they mean in depth interviews with patients and key informant interviews with the CTN? More elaboration on this aspect of the study is required including the qualitative data collection and analysis .

Reviewer #4: The authors clearly and intelligibly wrote this manuscript in standard English. The rationale was stated well and it indeed is a worthwhile project. The protocol is technically sound and the methods used are replicable.

ISSUES to address

The links in the appendix on pages 30,31,32 and 33 all link to download of the SPIRIT guidelines. These should be redirected to the appropriate documents.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_efdb1.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 3;18(11):e0291067. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291067.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Jul 2023

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

Since (as you have mentioned) in ‘Introduction’ section that “Systematic reviews on CTIs show a potential benefit for patients regarding risk of readmissions and symptom severity [14–17]”, and later in ‘Intervention’ section you also state that “optional components have been shown to be effective in several comparable studies [14,17].”, I wonder if there is really a need of such a ‘feasibility trial’? [particularly because the quoted studies are published in reputed journals and after looking at the competence/knowledge of the topic/preparation of the authors]. They could have planned a larger main/final phase-III trial (as said sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial) as well, I guess.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Thank you very much for pointing out this aspect. It is correct that there is some evidence that transitional interventions are effective with respect to risk reduction and other outcomes. However, only few studies evaluated the employment of a transition manager. Specifically, in the most thorough review on transitional interventions (TI) provided by Vigod et al. (2018; https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.115030) only five of the 15 studies included in the review implemented a transition manager: Two trials focussed on critical time interventions for veterans with serious mental illness (Dixon et al., 2009; Kasprow & Rosenheck, 2007), one very small trial (N = 13) on advanced practice psychiatric nurse communication with clients suffering from schizophrenia after discharge via prepaid cellular phones (Price 2007). Another very small trial (N = 25) investigated peer support and overlap of inpatient and community staff in “patients diagnosed with a range of mental illnesses” (Reynolds et al., 2004). Finally, Forchuk et al. (2005) evaluated overlap of in-patient and community staff and peer support in a sample with heterogeneous diagnoses.

While we agree that some evidence for the effectiveness of TIs is available, particularly for veterans with serious mental illness treated within the VA system, our trial by and large follows a new approach in that we apply a video-based approach that features (1) systematic identification of barriers for follow-up treatment, (2) highlighting patients’ problem-solving resources, and (3) motivational interviewing to keep patients engaged in care. In this respect, our intervention is more structured und builds on evidence-based components compared to those implemented in previous work. In the Discussion section on pages 21-22, we now state what our study will likely add to the existing literature.

However, the purpose/intention of ‘protocol for a pilot/feasibility study/trial’ is/are not known {at least to me and may be to many others as well}. Will these learned authors may please explain?

[Note that the statement “Patient recruitment will start in July 2022 and will probably be completed in July 2023” in this manuscript prompted me to write the above as this excellent study will get delayed].

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Publishing protocols of pilot and feasibility trials has been advocated as an important strategy towards improving transparency (Thabane, 2019; https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-019-0423-8). Specifically, it is argued that publishing pilot protocols avoids selective reporting the results, ensures consistency between the published protocol and published objectives, methods, and results, increases transparency concerning details of the planned study, improves the methodological quality of the main study, and raises investigators’ accountability. Published protocols of pilot studies also make it more likely that groups of researchers collaborate and expand the planned main study. We briefly point out these advantages of publishing protocols of pilot trials in the Discussion section on page 20.

Except these minor points, the article is acceptable. However, mind you that as pointed out in ‘important note’ above “This review pertains only to ‘statistical aspects’ of the study and so ‘clinical aspects’ should be assessed separately/independently. ‘Minor Revision’ is recommended.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: We are pleased that Reviewer #1 finds our work appealing and thank them for their time.

Reviewer #2:

There are a few comments which could be considered;

1. It is not clear how many psychotherapy sessions the patients will have had prior to enrollment during admission. It is possible that varying numbers of sessions may affect the outcomes.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Thank you for pointing this out. At this pilot stage, we will not account for the intensity of the treatment received prior to enrolment, since we are primarily interested in feasibility outcomes. However, in the sufficiently powered main trial, we will assess this variable applying the FIMPsy – Questionnaire for the Assessment of Medical and non-Medical Resource Utilisation in Mental Disorders (Grupp et al., 2018; https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-118033). We have added this to the Measurements subsection on page 16.

2. The core components of the intervention are mentioned. However there no studies provided to show that these components are essential for the outcomes they are measuring (for the optional components, some citations were provided).

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Core components of the intervention are: (1) identification and subsequent addressing of barriers that prevent the patient from taking up an outpatient psychosocial follow-up treatment, (2) working through challenges and achievements from the patient’s point of view, (3) training in motivational interviewing and social work for the care transition navigator. We have added that core components have been shown to be effective in increasing mental health treatment engagement in previous work (see pages 10-11). We now also provide a reference highlighting the evidence for the main outcome mental health treatment engagement for each of these three components (see page 11).

3. The CTI sessions will be provided via a web based teleconference system that is paid for. Won't this be a barrier for some patients who may not have the system or how to use it?

AUTHORS’ REPLY: The system will be paid for by the study team and is covered by the funding scheme. No fee will apply for patients. In routine care in Germany, the use of teleconferencing systems is covered by the statutory health insurance. We have added this detail to the manuscript on page 12.

4. Sufficiency and efficiency are some of the outcomes being measured. How will these two be analyzed?

AUTHORS’ REPLY: To estimate the sufficiency and efficiency of the recruitment strategies, we will calculate the recruitment yield, i.e., number randomized per number screened, and the consent rate, i.e., number randomized per number eligible. We have added this information to the manuscript on page 17.

Reviewer #3:

The authors address an important aspect of mental health services and provide a rationale for bridging inpatient and outpatient care, however , the rationale for the chosen illness conditions (Depression and Anxiety) is not provided. This makes it difficult to appreciate why CTI (the intervention ) should be the intervention of choice.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: CTIs have not been evaluated or even implemented in German routine mental healthcare. Indeed, in the most thorough reviews on transitional interventions (TI) provided by Vigod et al. (2013; https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.115030) and Tyler et al. (2019; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4658-0) not a single trial comes from Germany. Hence, we selected depression and anxiety as highly prevalent mental health disorders with high burden of disease to pilot the CTI in German mental healthcare. We have added our considerations when planning the study on page 6.

Of note, CTI is a multicomponent intervention but the detail on how it has been developed , and what the effective components are (core and optional ) would help one to appreciate how CTI is likely to be effective.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: We developed the CTI based on a thorough review of the literature (MEDLINE and Google Scholar with the search term “mental health treatment engagement" and no filters) finalized on February 8th, 2022. The literature was reviewed by a group of experts of different backgrounds (psychiatrist, epidemiologist, psychologist) Specifically, we selected the intervention components with respect to their potential effectiveness for increasing mental health treatment engagement. We have added the history of how the intervention was developed on page 9.

How will the patients be involved in the development of the intervention like is stated in the protocol (patient and public involvement) ?

AUTHORS’ REPLY: We have elaborated on how we will involve patients in the refinement of the intervention with respect to a large confirmatory trial (please see page 20).

A schematic or diagram illustrating CTI (and the treatment as usual for the control arm) would help explain the two study treatments under comparison.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: We have added a respective schematic, please see Figure 3.

A study conceptual framework should also be included in the protocol.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: We added subsection on the study conceptual framework including Table 1 which provides an overview.

It is not clear to me how patient recruitment will start in July 2022 and end in 2023 yet the protocol is under review in July 2023;

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Thank you for pointing this out. Recruitment started in August 2022 and is on-going. We have amended the manuscript accordingly on page 6.

why is pregnancy in the 2nd and 3rd trimester part of the exclusion criteria?

AUTHORS’ REPLY: For this pilot trial, we aimed for minimizing the rate of loss-to-follow-up. Hence, we excluded pregnant women who may not have been able to complete follow-up assessments due to giving childbirth. We will drop this exclusion criterion in the main trial. We have amended the manuscript accordingly on page 7.

And how will insufficient German language proficiency be determined?

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Before enrolling patients, we will regularly check with providers having delivered inpatient treatment if a therapeutic dialogue was possible and whether language proficiency had turned out as a problem during inpatient treatment. We have amended the manuscript accordingly on page 7.

With respect to the intervention; how will relapses be handled in the study?

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Patients experience relapses will have full and free access to all levels of mental healthcare which covered under the statutory health insurance in Germany. We will approach all patients systematically for postassessments regardless of whether they have received a relapse to minimize missing data for the follow-up. We have amended the manuscript accordingly on page 18.

How will the assessors who will collect data be blinded to the treatment allocation? this was not clear,

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Thank you for pointing this out. This is a mistake: In this feasibility trial, we will not blind outcome assessors. We have amended the manuscript accordingly.

The study seems like it will use a mixed methods approach but there is limited detail on qualitative methods, specifically the interviews; do they mean in depth interviews with patients and key informant interviews with the CTN? More elaboration on this aspect of the study is required including the qualitative data collection and analysis .

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Thank you for highlighting this aspect. This is correct. We will conduct semi-structured interviews both with patients and with the CTN. We now provide more details on the qualitative strand of our trial in the manuscript on page 19.

Reviewer #4:

The authors clearly and intelligibly wrote this manuscript in standard English. The rationale was stated well and it indeed is a worthwhile project. The protocol is technically sound and the methods used are replicable.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: Thank you for your positive evaluation of our work.

ISSUES to address

The links in the appendix on pages 30,31,32 and 33 all link to download of the SPIRIT guidelines. These should be redirected to the appropriate documents.

AUTHORS’ REPLY: We have redirected the links accordingly.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ambition_study_protocol_response_to_reviewers_20230715.docx

Decision Letter 1

Dickens Akena

22 Aug 2023

From inpatient to outpatient mental health care: protocol for a randomised feasibility trial of a care transition intervention for patients with depression and anxiety (the AMBITION-trial)

PONE-D-23-11362R1

Dear Dr. Huan

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dickens Akena, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Dickens Akena

25 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-11362R1

From inpatient to outpatient mental health care: Protocol for a randomised feasibility trial of a care transition intervention for patients with depression and anxiety (the AMBITION-trial)

Dear Dr. Haun:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Dickens Akena

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. SPIRIT-checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. PLOS ONE clinical studies checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S3 File. Ethics committee study protocol original.

    (PDF)

    S4 File. Ethics committee study protocol translation.

    (PDF)

    S5 File. Ethics committee approval original.

    (PDF)

    S6 File. Ethics committee approval translation.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: renamed_efdb1.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ambition_study_protocol_response_to_reviewers_20230715.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES