Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35946167›Full record

Trial reportEuropean psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists2022

Improving treatment of patients with psychosis in low-and-middle-income countries in Southeast Europe: Results from a hybrid effectiveness-implementation, pragmatic, cluster-randomized clinical trial (IMPULSE).

N Jovanović, M Russo, T Pemovska, J J Francis, A Arenliu, S Bajraktarov, A Džubur Kulenović, L Injac Stevović, A Novotni, S Andrić Petrović and 4 more

Abstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

14 authors.

N JovanovićWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7554-9837
M RussoWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0098-7533
T PemovskaWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4362-0165
J J FrancisMelbourne School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5784-8895
A ArenliuDepartment of Psychology, University of Prishtina, Pristina, Kosovo* by United Nations resolution.ORCID 0000-0002-7016-4188
S BajraktarovMedical Faculty, University "Ss. Cyril and Methodius", University Clinic of Psychiatry, Skopje, North Macedonia.ORCID 0000-0002-2554-4691
A Džubur KulenovićDepartment of Psychiatry, Clinical Center University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.ORCID 0000-0002-1883-7111
L Injac StevovićPsychiatric clinic, Clinical Centre of Montenegro, Podgorica; Medical faculty, University of Montenegro, Montenegro.
A NovotniMedical Faculty, University "Ss. Cyril and Methodius", University Clinic of Psychiatry, Skopje, North Macedonia.
S Andrić PetrovićFaculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
T RadojičićPsychiatric clinic, Clinical Centre of Montenegro, Podgorica; Medical faculty, University of Montenegro, Montenegro.
E RibićDepartment of Psychiatry, Clinical Center University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.ORCID 0000-0002-4569-1277
J KonjufcaDepartment of Psychology, University of Prishtina, Pristina, Kosovo* by United Nations resolution.ORCID 0000-0002-3406-4622
N P MarićFaculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Southeast Europe (SEE) standard treatment of patients with psychosis is largely based on pharmacotherapy with psychosocial interventions rarely available. DIALOG+ is a digital psychosocial intervention designed to make routine care therapeutically effective. This trial simultaneously examined effectiveness of DIALOG+ versus standard care on clinical and social outcomes (Aim 1) and explored intervention fidelity (Aim 2).

methodsA hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation, cluster-randomized trial was conducted in five SEE countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. The intervention was offered to patients six times across 12 months instead of routine care. The outcomes were subjective quality of life (primary), clinical symptoms, satisfaction with services, and economic costs. Intervention fidelity was operationalized as adherence to the protocol in terms of frequency, duration, content, and coverage. Data were analyzed using multilevel regression.

resultsA total of 81 clinicians and 468 patients with psychosis were randomized to DIALOG+ or standard care. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. The average number of delivered sessions was 5.5 (SD = 2.3) across 12 months. Patients in the intervention arm had better quality of life (MANSA) at 6 months (

conclusionsDIALOG+ improved subjective quality of life of individuals with psychosis at 6 months (after four sessions), albeit with small effect size. The intervention has the potential to contribute to holistic care of patients with psychosis.

Indexed as

Psychosocial InterventionPsychotic DisordersCOVID-19Developing CountriesEuropeHumansPandemicsQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeDigitalimplementationmental healthpsychosisrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID35946167
PMCPMC9491080

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.