Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26715847›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2015

The effects of motivation feedback in patients with severe mental illness: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Eline C Jochems, Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis, Arno van Dam, Hugo J Duivenvoorden, Cornelis L Mulder

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Psychological interventions for antisocial personality disorder.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eline C JochemsDepartment of Psychiatry, Epidemiological and Social Psychiatric Research Institute, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands ; GGz Breburg, Top Clinical Center for Body, Mind and Health, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Christina M van der Feltz-CornelisDepartment of Psychiatry, Epidemiological and Social Psychiatric Research Institute, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands ; GGz Breburg, Top Clinical Center for Body, Mind and Health, Tilburg, the Netherlands ; Tilburg University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tranzo Department, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Arno van DamTilburg University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tranzo Department, Tilburg, the Netherlands ; GGZ Westelijk Noord Brabant, Bergen op Zoom, the Netherlands.
Hugo J DuivenvoordenErasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Cornelis L MulderDepartment of Psychiatry, Epidemiological and Social Psychiatric Research Institute, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands ; BavoEuropoort, Parnassia Psychiatric Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLTilburg University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of providing clinicians with regular feedback on the patient's motivation for treatment in increasing treatment engagement in patients with severe mental illness.

methods

designcluster randomized controlled trial (Dutch Trials Registry NTR2968).

participantsadult outpatients with a primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder or a personality disorder and their clinicians, treated in 12 community mental health teams (the clusters) of two mental health institutions in the Netherlands.

interventionsmonthly motivation feedback (MF) generated by clinicians additional to treatment as usual (TAU) and TAU by the community mental health teams. PRIMARY OUTCOME: treatment engagement at patient level, assessed at 12 months by clinicians. RANDOMIZATION: teams were allocated to MF or TAU by a computerized randomization program that randomized each team to a single treatment by blocks of varying size. All participants within these teams received similar treatment. Clinicians and patients were not blind to treatment allocation at the 12-month assessment.

resultsThe 294 randomized patients (148 MF, 146 TAU) and 57 clinicians (29 MF, 28 TAU) of 12 teams (6 MF, 6 TAU) were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. No statistically significant differences between treatment groups on treatment engagement were found (adjusted mean difference =0.1, 95% confidence interval =-2.2 to 2.3, P=0.96, d=0). Preplanned ancillary analyses showed statistically significant interaction effects between treatment group and primary diagnosis on treatment motivation and quality of life (secondary outcomes), which were beneficial for patients with a primary diagnosis of a personality disorder but not for those with a psychotic disorder. There were no reports of adverse events.

conclusionThe current findings imply that monitoring and discussing the patient's motivation is insufficient to improve motivation and treatment engagement, and suggests that more elaborate interventions for severe mental illness patients are needed.

Indexed as

adherencefeedbackmotivationpersonality disorderspsychotic disordersrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID26715847
PMCPMC4686323
OpenAlexW2203914464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.