169 General Discussion 7 network analyses are not (yet) well equipped to replace how practice currently attributes a personality profile to a participant. That is, the combination of clinical judgment and administrating SURPS that is currently anchored in Take it Personal! is still preferable. Nevertheless, it is important that Take it Personal! offers more ways to promote personalization than just identifying homogeneous subgroups in terms of substance use motives. One strength of Take it Personal! is that participants recognize and support each other in group sessions. This can allow for personalization, as participants share their own experiences. Practice, however, unfortunately often experiences difficulties forming one group of three or four people with the same personality profile that can start at the same time. Therefore, the development of a manual without group exercises may offer a fully personalized alternative. The most important future personalization avenue for Take it Personal! is channeling personalized diary entries about substance use and items reflecting protective and risk factors back to clients and clinicians. EMA data can and should be used to adapt intervention strategies to the individual’s needs and abilities. Diary monitoring is the future of clinical practice Chapter 4 illustrated the potential that diary apps hold to improve communication between clients and care professionals. Our study focused on how compliant participants were and how they experienced participating. A major limitation, however, is that we did not assess the experiences of professionals. Embedding EMA in daily care will largely depend on the added value that professionals see in the method. In daily care for young people with a mild intellectual disability, professionals typically intervene based on the immediate needs of the day. Professionals work in shifts, so no one is present 24/7, which may make it difficult for any professional to recognize patterns from one day to the next. Interviews with professionals who implemented EMA in regular psychiatric practice revealed the method offered them new insights, improved communication between patient and clinician, and guided treatment directions (Bos et al., 2020). It remains unclear if and how this is the case in specialized care for people with mild intellectual disability. Future research could employ qualitative methods to ascertain which gains and drawbacks professionals see, which data summaries or visualizations they prefer in the app when they discuss self-reported patterns with clients in daily care (or within a therapy session), the strategies they use to discuss them, and suggestions they may have for further improvements. The professional's viewpoints would complement the participants' experiences well, especially because people with mild intellectual disabilities often struggle with thorough self-reflection.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw