Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35086501›Full record

Trial reportBMC psychiatry2022

Patient-centered placement matching of alcohol-dependent patients based on a standardized intake assessment: process evaluation within an exploratory randomized controlled trial.

Angela Buchholz, Michael Berner, Judith Dams, Anke Rosahl, Jochen Hempleman, Hans-Helmut König, Alexander Konnopka, Levente Kriston, Daniela Piontek, Jens Reimer and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 50% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Angela BuchholzDepartment of Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Centre of Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. a.buchholz@uke.de.
Michael BernerMunicipal Clinical Center of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Judith DamsDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Anke RosahlDepartment of Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Centre of Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Jochen HemplemanOutpatient Department for Addiction, LWL-Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Hans-Helmut KönigDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Alexander KonnopkaDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Levente KristonDepartment of Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Centre of Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Daniela PiontekIFT Institut für Therapieforschung, München, Germany.
Jens ReimerCentre for Interdisciplinary Addiction Research, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Jeanette RöhrigClinic for Addiction Medicine and Addictive Behaviour, Institute for Clinical Psychology, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Norbert ScherbaumLVR-Hospital Essen, Department of Addictive Behavior and Addiction Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany.
Anna SilkensLVR-Hospital Essen, Department of Addictive Behavior and Addiction Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany.
Ludwig KrausIFT Institut für Therapieforschung, München, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversity of Duisburg-Essen · DEIFT Institut für Therapieforschung · DEKlinikum Stuttgart · DELandschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe · DEStädtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe · DEStockholm University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the implementation of placement matching guidelines, feasibility has been concerned in previous research. Objectives of this process evaluation were to investigate whether the patient-centered matching guidelines (PCPM) are consistently applied in referral decision-making from an inpatient qualified withdrawal program to a level of care in aftercare, which factors affect whether patients actually receive matched aftercare according to PCPM, and whether its use is feasible and accepted by clinic staff.

methodsThe study was conducted as process evaluation within an exploratory randomized controlled trial in four German psychiatric clinics offering a 7-to-21 day qualified withdrawal program for patients suffering from alcohol dependence, and with measurements taken during detoxification treatment and six months after the initial assessment. PCPM were used with patients in the intervention group by feeding back to them a recommendation for a level of care in aftercare that had been calculated from Measurements in the Addictions for Triage and Evaluation (MATE) and discussed with the staff on the treatment unit. As measurements, The MATE, the Client Socio-Demographic and Service Receipt Inventory-European Version, a documentation form, the Control Preference Scale, and the Motivation for Treatment Scale were administered. A workshop for the staff at the participating trial sites was conducted after data collection was finished.

resultsAmong 250 patients participating in the study, 165 were interviewed at follow-up, and 125 had received aftercare. Although consistency in the application of PCPM was moderate to substantial within the qualified withdrawal program (Cohen's kappa ≥ .41), it was fair from discharge to follow-up. In multifactorial multinomial regression, the number of foregoing substance abuse treatments predicted whether patients received more likely undermatched (Odds Ratio=1.27; p=.018) or overmatched (Odds Ratio=0.78; p=.054) treatment. While the implementation process during the study was evaluated critically by the staff, they stated a potential of quality assurance, more transparency and patient-centeredness in the use of PCPM.

conclusionsWhile the use of PCPM has the potential to enhance the quality of referral decision making within treatment, it may not be sufficient to determine referral decisions for aftercare.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00005035 . Registered 03/06/2013.

Indexed as

AlcoholismAftercareHumansMotivationPatient-Centered CareReferral and ConsultationAllocation guidelinesComprehensive assessmentHealth-services researchMeasurement in the Addictions for Triage and EvaluationPatient-centred placement matchingProcess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID35086501
PMCPMC8793210
OpenAlexW4210654957

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.