Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32539907›Full record

Trial reportEpidemiology and psychiatric sciences2020

Implementing shared decision-making on acute psychiatric wards: a cluster-randomized trial with inpatients suffering from schizophrenia (SDM-PLUS).

J Hamann, F Holzhüter, S Blakaj, S Becher, B Haller, M Landgrebe, M Schmauß, S Heres

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Experiential and Medical Knowledge of Shared Decision-Making: Exploring Clinician and Service User Perspectives in NHS Community Mental Health Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

J HamannKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Technische Universität München, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3861-6017
F HolzhüterKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Technische Universität München, Germany.
S BlakajIsar-Amper-Klinikum München Ost, Haar, Germany.
S BecherKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Technische Universität München, Germany.
B HallerInstitut für Medizinische Informatik, Statistik und Epidemiologie, Technische Universität München, Germany.
M LandgrebeLech Mangfall Klinikum, Agatharied, Germany.
M SchmaußBezirkskrankenhaus Augsburg, Germany.
S HeresIsar-Amper-Klinikum München Ost, Haar, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsAlthough shared decision-making (SDM) has the potential to improve health outcomes, psychiatrists often exclude patients with more severe mental illnesses or more acute conditions from participation in treatment decisions. This study examines whether SDM is facilitated by an approach which is specifically adapted to the needs of acutely ill patients (SDM-PLUS).

methodsThe study is a multi-centre, cluster-randomised, non-blinded, controlled trial of SDM-PLUS in 12 acute psychiatric wards of five psychiatric hospitals addressing inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. All patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were consecutively recruited for the trial at the time of their admission to the ward. Treatment teams of intervention wards were trained in the SDM-PLUS approach through participation in two half-day workshops. Patients on intervention wards received group training in SDM. Staff (and patients) of the control wards acted under 'treatment as usual' conditions. The primary outcome parameter was the patients' perceived involvement in decision-making at 3 weeks after study enrolment, analysed using a random-effects linear regression model.

resultsIn total, 161 participants each were recruited in the intervention and control group. SDM-PLUS led to higher perceived involvement in decision-making (primary outcome, analysed patients n = 257, mean group difference 16.5, 95% CI 9.0-24.0, p = 0.002, adjusted for baseline differences: β 17.3, 95% CI 10.8-23.6, p = 0.0004). In addition, intervention group patients exhibited better therapeutic alliance, treatment satisfaction and self-rated medication compliance during inpatient stay. There were, however, no significant improvements in adherence and rehospitalisation rates in the 6- and 12-month follow-up.

conclusionsDespite limitations in patient recruitment, the SDM-PLUS trial has shown that the adoption of behavioural approaches (e.g. motivational interviewing) for SDM may yield a successful application to mental health. The authors recommend strategies to ensure effects are not lost at the interface between in- and outpatient treatment.Trial registration: The trial was registered at Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS00010880).

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient ParticipationAdultCommunicationFemaleHumansInpatientsMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePsychiatric Department, HospitalSchizophreniaSchizophrenic PsychologyYoung AdultHealth service researchinpatient psychiatryother psychosocial techniques/treatmentsschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID32539907
PMCPMC7303792

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.