ArticlePsychiatric rehabilitation journal2018
Implementing CommonGround in a community mental health center: Lessons in a computerized decision support system.
Article in Psychiatric rehabilitation journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Study Analysis of a Decision Coaching Intervention for Young Adults with Early Psychosis.Community mental health journal · 2025Trial
- Subtyping Service Receipt in Personality Disorder Services in South London: Observational Validation Study Using Latent Profile Analysis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Comparison of analog and digital patient decision aids for the treatment of depression: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
- Treatment decision-making needs among emerging adults with early psychosis.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Facilitating treatment engagement for early psychosis through peer-delivered decision support: intervention development and protocol for pilot evaluation.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2021Article
- What Works in Implementing Patient Decision Aids in Routine Clinical Settings? A Rapid Realist Review and Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Review
- Skills-based intervention to enhance collaborative decision-making: systematic adaptation and open trial protocol for veterans with psychosis.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2021Article
- Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness: A concept analysis.Japan journal of nursing science : JJNS · 2020Review
- Preferences of Information Dissemination on Treatment for Bipolar Disorder: Patient-Centered Focus Group Study.JMIR mental health · 2019Article
- Internet-based interventions to support recovery and self-management: A scoping review of their use by mental health service users and providers together.BMC psychiatry · 2019Article
- Implementation and Use of a Client-Facing Web-Based Shared Decision-Making System (MyCHOIS-CommonGround) in Two Specialty Mental Health Clinics.Community mental health journal · 2019Article
- Use of Mobile and Computer Devices to Support Recovery in People With Serious Mental Illness: Survey Study.JMIR mental health · 2019Article
- [Shared decision-making in acute psychiatric medicine : Contraindication or a challenge?]Der Nervenarzt · 2017Review
- Consumer Outcomes After Implementing CommonGround as an Approach to Shared Decision Making.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2017Article
- Exploring the potential implementation of a tool to enhance shared decision making (SDM) in mental health services in the United Kingdom: a qualitative exploration of the views of service users, carers and professionals.International journal of mental health systems · 2017Article
- How Shared Is Shared Decision Making? Reaching the Full Potential of Patient-Clinician Collaboration in Mental Health.Harvard review of psychiatryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAlthough shared decision making (SDM) is a key element of client-centered care, it has not been widely adopted. Accordingly, interventions have been developed to promote SDM. The aim of this study was to explore the implementation process of one SDM intervention, CommonGround, which utilizes peer specialists and a computerized decision support center to promote SDM.
methodAs part of a larger study, CommonGround was implemented in 4 treatment teams in a community mental health center. The implementation process was examined by conducting semistructured interviews with 12 staff members that were integral to the CommonGround implementation. Responses were analyzed using content analysis. Program fidelity and client program use were also examined.
resultsAlthough key informants identified several client and staff benefits to using CommonGround, including improved treatment engagement and availability of peer specialists, most clients did not use CommonGround consistently throughout the implementation. Key informants and fidelity reports indicated a number of program (e.g., technological difficulties, increased staff burden) and contextual barriers (e.g., poor fit with service structure, decision support center location, low staff investment and high turnover) to the successful implementation of CommonGround. Strategies to maximize the implementation by increasing awareness, buy-in, and utilization are also reported. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This implementation of CommonGround was limited in its success partly as a result of program and contextual barriers. Future implementations may benefit from incorporating the strategies identified to maximize implementation in order to obtain the full program benefits. (PsycINFO Database Record
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.