Background Poor management of mental illnesses is associated with lower treatment adherence, chronification, avoidable re-hospitalisations, and high costs. Remote measurement based care (RMBC) interventions have gained increasing relevance due to its potential in providing a comprehensive and patient-centric approach to mental health management. Objectives The systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of existing evidence on the use of RMBC for patients with mental illness and to examine the effectiveness of RMBC interventions in alleviating disorder-specific symptoms, reducing relapse and improving recovery-oriented outcomes, global functioning, and quality of life. Methods and analysis Our multidisciplinary research team will develop a comprehensive search strategy, adapted to each electronic database (PubMed, Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO) to be examined systematically. Studies with patients formally diagnosed by the International Classification of Diseases or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which include assessment of self-reported psychiatric symptoms will be included. Publications will be reviewed by teams of independent researchers. Quality of studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Outcomes cover symptom-focused or disease-specific outcomes, relapse, recovery-focused outcomes, global functioning, quality of life and acceptability of the intervention. Further data that will be extracted includes study characteristics, target population, intervention, and tracking characteristics. Data will be synthesised qualitatively, summarising findings of the systematic review. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will be considered for meta-analysis if data is found comparable in terms of mental illness, study design and outcomes. Cumulative evidence will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Trial registration Trial registration number: PROSPERO CRD42022356176.
Background: Poor management of mental health conditions leads to reduced adherence to treatment, prolonged illness, unnecessary rehospitalisation and significant financial burden to the health care system. Recognizing this, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and remote measurement-based care (RMBC) interventions have emerged as promising strategies to address gaps in current care systems. They provide convenient means to continuously monitor patient-reported outcomes, thereby informing clinical decision-making and potentially improving outcomes such as psychopathology, relapse, and quality of life. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to comprehensively appraise and analyse the existing evidence on the use of EMA and RMBC for people living with mental illness. Methods: The study was conducted according to PRISMA-P guidelines and pre-registered with PROSPERO. A comprehensive search was conducted in four online databases using MeSH terms related to mental disorders and digital technologies. Studies were included if they included adults with a formally diagnosed mental disorder and measured symptoms using ecological momentary assessment or remote measurement-based care. Studies were independently reviewed by subgroups of authors and data were extracted focusing on symptom-focused or disease-specific outcomes, relapse, recovery-focused outcomes, global functioning, quality of life and acceptability of the intervention. We performed a descriptive analysis of demographic variables and a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials version 2. Results: The systematic review included k = 103 studies, of which k = 15 used remote measurement-based care (RMBC). Of these, k = 9 were randomised controlled trials that were meta-analyzed. RMBC interventions varied in effectiveness, generally showing small but significant effects on symptom-specific outcomes, with notable effects on mania symptoms and empowerment. Adherence to all tracking items was 74.46 % (SD = 13.98, k = 38). More prompts per day, but not more items per prompt, was associated with lower adherence. Adverse effects were infrequently reported and included technical problems and psychological distress. Concerns about bias were raised, particularly regarding participants' awareness of the interventions and potential deviations from the intended protocols. Conclusions: Although RMBC shows growing potential in improving and tailoring psychiatric care to individual needs, the evidence of its clinical effectiveness is still limited. However, we found potential effects on mania symptoms and on empowerment. Overall, there were only a few RCTs with formal psychiatric diagnoses to be included in our analyses, and these had moderate risks of bias. Future studies assessing RMBCs effectiveness and long-term efficacy with larger populations are needed. Clinical Trial: Prospero CRD42022356176