Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29944712›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

Effectiveness of a multi-facetted blended eHealth intervention during intake supporting patients and clinicians in Shared Decision Making: A cluster randomised controlled trial in a specialist mental health outpatient setting.

Margot Metz, Iman Elfeddali, Marjolein Veerbeek, Edwin de Beurs, Aartjan Beekman, Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Supported Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Outcomes for People With Mental Ill Health.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Margot MetzGGz Breburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2017-6276
Iman ElfeddaliGGz Breburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Marjolein VeerbeekTrimbos Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Edwin de BeursFoundation for Benchmarking Mental Health Care, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Aartjan BeekmanGGZ inGeest, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Christina van der Feltz-CornelisGGz Breburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Tilburg University · NLGGz Breburg · NLGGZ inGeest · NLLeiden University · NLTrimbos Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of a multi-facetted blended eHealth intervention, called SDM-Digital Intake (SDM-DI), in which patients and clinicians are supported in Shared Decision Making during the intake process.

methodsThe study is a two-arm matched-paired cluster Randomised Controlled Trial in a specialist mental health outpatient setting with two conditions: SDM-DI and Intake As Usual (IAU). Four intake teams were allocated to each arm. All patients who followed an intake, were asked to participate if they were capable to complete questionnaires. Decisional Conflict (DC), referring to patients' engagement and satisfaction with clinical decisions, was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were patient participation, applying Shared Decision Making (SDM), working alliance, treatment adherence and symptom severity. Effects were measured at two weeks (T1) and two months (T2) after intake. Multilevel regression and intention-to-treat analyses were used. Additionally, the influence of subgroups and intervention adherence on DC were explored.

resultsAt T1, 200 patients participated (47% intervention, 53% control), and at T2 175 patients (47% intervention, 53% control). At T1 and T2, no differences were found between conditions on DC. Subgroup analyses showed that effects of SDM-DI on DC were not modified by primary diagnoses mood, anxiety and personality disorders. Compared to IAU, at T2, patients reported positive effects of SDM-DI on SDM (β 7.553, p = 0.038, 95%CI:0.403-14.703, d = 0.32) and reduction of symptoms (β -7.276, p = 0.0497, 95%CI:-14.544--0.008, d = -0.43). No effects were found on patient participation, working alliance and treatment adherence. Exploratory analyses demonstrated that if SDM was applied well, patients reported less DC (β = -0.457, p = 0.000, 95%CI:-0.518--0.396, d = -1.31), which was associated with better treatment outcomes.

conclusionAlthough, this trial fails to demonstrate that SDM-DI by itself is sufficient to reduce DC, the results are encouraging for further efforts in improving and implementing the SDM intervention.

Indexed as

Decision MakingMental DisordersMental HealthPatient ComplianceSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineAdultAmbulatory CareFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID29944712
PMCPMC6019395
OpenAlexW2809984518

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.