Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39456051›Full record

Trial reportTrials2024

Results of a randomized controlled superiority trial of the effect of modified collaborative assessment vs. standard assessment on patients' readiness for psychotherapy (CO-ASSM-RCT).

Oliver Rumle Hovmand, Nina Reinholt, Kirstine Dichmann, Radoslav Borisov, Carsten Hjorthøj, Sidse Arnfred

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05018312 (Social Phobia and Evasiveness), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

NCT05018312 naunknown statusnot on this map

Social Phobia and Evasiveness: A Feasibility, Superiority, Randomized Clinical Trial of the Effect of Modified Collaborative Assessment VS Standard Assessment on Patient's Readiness For Psychotherapy (CO-ASSM-RCT)

TypeinterventionalSponsorPsychiatric Research Unit, Region Zealand, DenmarkRan2021 to 2023Enrolled42ConditionsPsychotherapy, Social Anxiety Disorder, Personality DisordersArmsModified Collaborative Assessment (MCA), Assessment as Usual (AAU)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

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

6 authors.

Oliver Rumle HovmandPsychiatric Research Unit, Region Zealand Mental Health Service, Faelledvej 6, Slagelse, 4200, Denmark. ohov@regionsjaelland.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6928-6113
Nina ReinholtPsychiatric Research Unit, Region Zealand Mental Health Service, Faelledvej 6, Slagelse, 4200, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5117-9376
Kirstine DichmannDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8044-2359
Radoslav BorisovPsychiatry South, Region Zealand Mental Health Service, Vordingborg, Denmark.
Carsten HjorthøjMental Health Services in the Capital Region, Hellerup, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6943-4785
Sidse ArnfredPsychiatric Research Unit, Region Zealand Mental Health Service, Faelledvej 6, Slagelse, 4200, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5375-4226

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAvoidant personality disorder (AvPD) and social phobia (SP) are associated with high personal and societal costs. While psychotherapy can be efficient, many patients drop out during treatment. Little is known about what can be done to increase a patient's readiness for psychotherapy. However, research highlights the fields of collaborative and therapeutic assessment as a possible means to enhance readiness for psychotherapy.

methodsWe conducted a randomized controlled feasibility and superiority trial on patients with SP or AvPD who were to initiate psychotherapeutic treatment in outpatient mental health services. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either assessment as usual or modified collaborative assessment (MCA), provided as a pre-treatment intervention before psychotherapy initiation. MCA included the collaborative administration of a battery of psychological tests designed to assess the patient's psychopathology more systematically. The tests were administered in collaboration with the patient, and detailed oral and written feedback was provided. We investigated the feasibility of the MCA intervention regarding acceptability, patient satisfaction, and adherence. We also investigated MCA's effect on readiness for psychotherapy, as assessed with the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale (URICA), and outcomes relating to symptomatology and dropout rates.

resultsAll three prespecified feasibility outcomes were met. At the end of treatment, no significant difference was observed in any other outcome, except client satisfaction, which favored MCA (- 7.42 (95% CI - 11.75; - 3.09; p = 0.002)). DISCUSSION: We found that MCA was feasible, and patients were highly satisfied with the intervention. It is relevant to investigate another implementation of MCA.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05018312. Registered on August 24, 2021.

Indexed as

Feasibility StudiesPsychotherapyAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient DropoutsPatient SatisfactionPersonality DisordersPhobia, SocialTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAssessmentCollaborative assessmentEvasivenessPersonality disordersPsychotherapySocial phobiaTherapeutic assessment

Identifiers

PMID39456051
PMCPMC11515100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.