Trial reportHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021
Patient involvement in developing a patient-targeted feedback intervention after depression screening in primary care within the randomized controlled trial GET.FEEDBACK.GP.
Trial report in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Potential Harms of Feedback After Web-Based Depression Screening: Secondary Analysis of Negative Effects in the Randomized Controlled DISCOVER Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Patient involvement in developing a patient-targeted feedback intervention after depression screening in primary care within the randomized controlled trial GET.FEEDBACK.GP.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Trial
- Navigating Long-Term Co-Creative Research With Young Adults Diagnosed With Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Evaluation Tools for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Research: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2026Article
- Article
- A lifestyle educational course as an adjunct to biologic administration in patients with severe asthma: A feasibility study.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- A Bibliometric Analysis of Healthcare Intervention-Related Studies Reporting Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Rationalizing the Influence of Co-Design on Distress, Clinical Decision-Making and Disease Self-Management of Cancer Patients-as-Partners: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Exploring the impact of engagement in mental health and substance use research: A scoping review and thematic analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Roles, outcomes, and enablers within research partnerships: A rapid review of the literature on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Review
- Research evidence and implementation gaps in the engagement of people with lived experience in mental health and substance use research: a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- A scoping review of methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement in health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2022Article
- Barriers and facilitators faced by individuals with intellectual disabilities and/or autism when accessing primary healthcare.British journal of neuroscience nursing · 2022Article
- Patient-centred clinical trial design.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2022Review
- A Qualitative Exploration of Stakeholder Involvement in Decision-Making for Alcohol Treatment and Prevention Services.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- GPs' views on the use of depression screening and GP-targeted feedback: a qualitative study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- The efficacy of automated feedback after internet-based depression screening: Study protocol of the German, three-armed, randomised controlled trial DISCOVER.Internet interventions · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly required in mental health services research. To empower patients to actively address depression, the GET.FEEDBACK.GP study evaluates a patient-targeted feedback intervention after depression screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).
objectiveTo refine the patient-targeted feedback from a previous study within a participatory research team (PRT) by conducting workshops to investigate patients' needs and preferences for feedback. To evaluate the process and outcome of PPI.
designPatient and public involvement was carried out on the levels of collaboration and consultation. A PRT of patient partners and researchers planned and conducted three workshops with patients. Patients' needs were investigated using a focus group. Participants prioritized needs, discussed feedback drafts and evaluated two drafts using cognitive debriefings. Researchers of the PRT communicated the results at project level. PPI was evaluated using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tools (PPEET). SETTING AND
participantsA purposeful sampling of N = 12 patients with experiences of depression participated in at least one workshop.
resultsRelevant content-related needs about feedback (eg no distinction between severe and moderate symptoms), recommendations for action and patient-relevant information were considered. Needs for comprehensible, valuing, nonstigmatizing language and design elements (eg dimensional bar) were implemented. Workshops and PRT were positively evaluated. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsPatient and public involvement influenced the content, wording and design of the feedback. Strengths include two levels of PPI, methodical diversity and purposeful sampling. Limitations include the lack of inclusion of patients who are unaware of their depression. The evaluated PPI concept can be useful for future studies.
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.