Observational studyDer Nervenarzt2025
[Self-help offers for people with severe mental illness: who uses which format?]
Observational study in Der Nervenarzt, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-help can play an important supplementary role in the treatment of people with severe mental illness; however, little is known about the utilization of the various approaches.
objectiveThis study describes the use of various self-help options by patients with severe mental illness and examines potential predictors. MATERIAL AND
methodsAs part of the observational cross-sectional study on patients with severe mental illness (IMPPETUS, N = 397), trained staff collected sociodemographic, illness-associated and treatment-associated data between March 2019 and September 2019. Binary logistic regression was used to analyze a possible association with the use of self-help.
resultsThe participants most frequently reported using self-help literature (n = 170; 45.5%) followed by self-help groups (n = 130; 33.2%), electronic mental health applications (n = 56; 15.5%) and self-management approaches (n = 54; 14.8%). Trialogue seminars (n = 36; 9.9%) were the least used by the participants. The utilization of the various approaches is influenced by sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics (age, education, marital status, migration background, age at onset of initial mental health problems, psychosocial functioning level) but not by factors associated with treatment.
conclusionThe potential of self-help is not being fully utilized in the sample investigated. The reported use of self-help approaches by the participants ranged between 10% and 46%. The various formats address specific target groups. More targeted information must be provided about the various options and the use of self-help in routine treatment must be actively fostered in order to increase the utilization of self-help.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39438290What 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.