ArticleBMJ open2019
Healthcare Options for People Experiencing Depression (HOPE*D): the development and pilot testing of an encounter-based decision aid for use in primary care.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Supported decision-making interventions in mental healthcare: A systematic review of current evidence and implementation barriers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Shared Decision-Making Interventions for Service Users With Serious Mental Illnesses: State of the Science and Future Directions.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2021Pooled it
- Development of a Cocreated Decision Aid for Patients With Depression-Combining Data-Driven Prediction With Patients' and Clinicians' Needs and Perspectives: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- Improving Parkinson's Disease Care through Systematic Screening for Depression.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2024Article
- Exploring the general practitioners' point of view about clinical scores: a qualitative study.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2023Article
- Comparison of analog and digital patient decision aids for the treatment of depression: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
- Decision aids linked to the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: results of the acceptability of a decision aid for patients with generalized anxiety disorder.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- Shared Decision Making in Primary Care Based Depression Treatment: Communication and Decision-Making Preferences Among an Underserved Patient Population.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Disparities in Shared Decision-Making Research and Practice: The Case for Black American Patients.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and pilot an encounter-based decision aid (eDA) for people with depression for use in primary care.
designWe developed an eDA for depression through cognitive interviews and pilot tested it using a one-group pretest, post-test design in primary care. Feasibility, fidelity of eDA use and acceptability were assessed using recruitment rates and semistructured interviews with patients, medical assistants and clinicians. Treatment choice and shared decision-making (SDM) were also assessed.
settingInterviews with adult patients and the public were conducted in a mall and library in Grafton County, New Hampshire, while clinician interviews took place by phone or at the clinician's office. Pilot testing occurred in a New Hampshire primary care practice.
participantsCognitive interviews were conducted with adults, ≥18 years, who could read English from the following stakeholder groups: history of depression, the public and clinicians. Patients with a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of ≥5 were recruited for piloting.
resultsThree stages of cognitive interviews were conducted (n=28). Changes to eDA included moving the combination therapy information and access to treatment information, adding colour, modifying pictograms and editing the talk-therapy description. Clinician concerns about patient health literacy were not reflected in patient interviews. Of 59 patients who reviewed study information, 56 were eligible and agreed to participate in pilot testing; however, only 29 could be reached for follow-up. The eDA was widely accepted, though clinicians did not always use it as intended. We found no impact of eDA use on SDM, though patients chose a wider range of treatment options.
conclusionsWe demonstrated the feasibility of the use of an eDA for depression in primary care that was widely accepted. Further research is needed to improve the fidelity with which the eDA is used and to assess its impact on SDM and related health outcomes.
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.