Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32943031›Full record

Trial reportBMC psychiatry2020

Improving treatment decision-making in bipolar II disorder: a phase II randomised controlled trial of an online patient decision-aid.

Alana Fisher, Rachael Keast, Daniel Costa, Louise Sharpe, Vijaya Manicavasagar, Josephine Anderson, Ilona Juraskova

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Bipolar II Disorder: Understudied and Underdiagnosed.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Alana FisherThe University of Sydney, The School of Psychology, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. a.fisher@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-6027-659X
Rachael KeastThe University of Sydney, The School of Psychology, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Daniel CostaThe University of Sydney, The School of Psychology, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Louise SharpeThe University of Sydney, The School of Psychology, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Vijaya ManicavasagarThe Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Josephine AndersonThe Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Ilona JuraskovaThe University of Sydney, The School of Psychology, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

Australian Rotary Health Mental Health for Young Australians Grant (2017 - 2020)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany patients with bipolar II disorder (BPII) prefer to be more informed and involved in their treatment decision-making than they currently are. Limited knowledge and involvement in one's treatment is also likely to compromise optimal BPII management. This Phase II RCT aimed to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and safety of a world-first patient decision-aid website (e-DA) to improve treatment decision-making regarding options for relapse prevention in BPII. The e-DA's potential efficacy in terms of improving quality of the decision-making process and quality of the decision made was also explored.

methodsThe e-DA was based on International Patient Decision-Aid Standards and developed via an iterative co-design process. Adults with BPII diagnosis (n = 352) were recruited through a specialist outpatient clinical service and the social media of leading mental health organisations. Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive standard information with/without the e-DA (Intervention versus Control). At baseline (T0), post-treatment decision (T1) and at 3 months' post-decision follow-up (T2), participants completed a series of validated and purpose-designed questionnaires. Self-report and analytics data assessed the acceptability (e.g., perceived ease-of-use, usefulness; completed by Intervention participants only), safety (i.e., self-reported bipolar and/or anxiety symptoms), and feasibility of using the e-DA (% accessed). For all participants, questionnaires assessed constructs related to quality of the decision-making process (e.g., decisional conflict) and quality of the decision made (e.g., knowledge of treatment options and outcomes).

resultsIntervention participants endorsed the e-DA as acceptable and feasible to use (82.1-94.6% item agreement); most self-reported using the e-DA either selectively (51.8%; relevant sections only) or thoroughly (34%). Exploratory analyses indicated the e-DA's potential efficacy to improve decision-making quality; most between-group standardised mean differences (SMD) were small-to-moderate. The largest potential effects were detected for objective treatment knowledge (- 0.69, 95% CIs - 1.04, - 0.33 at T1; and - 0.57, 95% CIs - 0.99,-0.14 at T2), decisional regret at T2 (0.42, 95% CIs 0.01, 0.84), preparation for decision-making at T1 (- 0.44, 95% CIs - 0.81, - 0.07), and the Decisional Conflict Scale Uncertainty subscale (0.42, 95% CIs 0.08, 0.08) and Total (0.36, 95% CIs 0.30, 0.69) scores, with all SMDs favouring the Intervention over the Control conditions. Regarding safety, e-DA use was not associated with worse bipolar symptoms or anxiety.

conclusionThe e-DA appears to be acceptable, feasible, safe and potentially efficacious at improving patients' decision-making about BPII treatment. Findings also support the future adoption of the e-DA into patient care for BPII to foster treatment decisions based on the best available evidence and patient preferences.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000840381 (prospectively registered 07/06/2017).

Indexed as

Bipolar DisorderAdultAustraliaDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesEmotionsHumansPatient ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesBipolar II disorderDecisional conflictInformed choicePatient decision aidPatient involvementPatient knowledgePhase II randomised controlled trialRelapse preventionShared decision-makingTreatment

Identifiers

PMID32943031
PMCPMC7495840

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.