Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27829392›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2016

Illness Management & Recovery (IMR) in the Netherlands; a naturalistic pilot study to explore the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial.

Bert-Jan Roosenschoon, Jaap van Weeghel, Moniek Bogaards, Mathijs L Deen, Cornelis L Mulder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Bert-Jan RoosenschoonDepartment of Psychiatry, Epidemiological and Social Psychiatric Research Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. b.roosenschoon@parnassiagroep.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4290-6789
Jaap van WeeghelTilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Department of TRANZO, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037, AB, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Moniek BogaardsParnassia Psychiatric Institute, Bavo-Europoort, Prins Constantijnweg 48-54, 3066, TA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mathijs L DeenParnassia Psychiatric Institute, Parnassia Academy, Kiwistraat 32, 2552, DH, Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Cornelis L MulderDepartment of Psychiatry, Epidemiological and Social Psychiatric Research Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIllness Management & Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based program for people with severe and persistent mental illness. To date, four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published on it. As these produced mixed results, we conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of conducting a new RCT in a Dutch psychiatric institute. Because our primary objective was to evaluate support for implementing IMR on a broader scale, we examined participant recruitment, client outcomes, and clients' and clinicians' satisfaction. Secondary objectives were to evaluate fidelity, trainers' training and supervision, and to explore program duration, dropout, and client characteristics related to dropout. For reporting, we used the checklist for pilot studies adopted from the CONSORT Statement.

methodsThis program evaluation included a process-evaluation and an outcome evaluation with a One Group Pre-Posttest Design (N = 81). Interviews and internal reports were used to monitor participant numbers, program duration, dropout, and completers' characteristics. Clients' and clinicians' satisfaction and provision of trainers' training and supervision were assessed through interviews. Fidelity was assessed on the IMR Fidelity Scale; client outcomes were assessed on the IMR scale (client and clinician versions) and the Recovery Markers Questionnaire (RMQ).

resultsEighty-one participants were recruited of 167 people who were assessed for eligibility. Completers and clinicians were satisfied, and scores for completers improved significantly on the IMR scale (clinician version) (d = 0.84) and RMQ (d = 0.52), and not significantly on the IMR scale client version (d = 0.41). Mean fidelity was good, but three groups had only moderate fidelity. Our feasibility criterion for trainers' education and supervision was partly attained. Dropout from treatment was 51 %; female participants and people who scored higher on both IMR-scales at baseline had a significantly lower chance of dropping out. The duration of IMR varied (M = 12.7 months, SD = 2.87).

conclusionsResults suggested that feasibility of conducting an RCT on IMR was good. Special attention is required to fidelity, IMR duration, trainers' education and supervision, and dropout, especially of men. One study limitation was our inability to conduct follow-up measurements of non-completers.

Indexed as

Outcome and Process Assessment, Health CareProgram EvaluationAdolescentAdultAgedFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedNetherlandsPilot ProjectsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicYoung AdultFeasibilityIllness Management and RecoveryIMRPilot studyRecoverySchizophreniaSelf managementSevere mental Illness

Identifiers

PMID27829392
PMCPMC5103352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.