ArticleDer Nervenarzt2025
[Involvement of representatives of patients and relatives in guideline processes : S3 guidelines on psychosocial therapies for severe mental illnesses breaks new ground].
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe participation of representatives of patients and relatives in the development of guidelines is of central importance for the quality, feasibility and acceptance of guidelines. In Germany this has not been sufficiently implemented in the discipline of psychiatry, although in practice there are many examples for the benefits of the expertise of people with psychiatric experience.
objectiveThe article describes the development and a first process evaluation of a trialogical working group (AG Impuls) accompanying the guideline process. Possibilities for further development and implementation are discussed.
methodsDescription of the working process of the Impuls working group as well as the results of the satisfaction survey after 18 months and summarised content analysis.
resultsConcept: during the further development of the S3 guidelines on psychosocial therapies, the expertise of 12 experts is bundled in the Impuls working group and supported by the members of the steering group. An open discussion takes place in regular digital working meetings and face to face meetings are held once a year as part of the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN) congress. The results are presented to the guideline committee at the consensus conferences. Text boxes from the Impuls working group constitute an important tool. EVALUATION: the following topics were identified in connection with the participatory work: (a) exchange at eye level, broadening perspectives and contributing impulses, (b) giving a voice to experienced experts, (c) implementation requirements and possibilities and (d) limitations of the cooperation. Various preconditions and implementation requirements for long-term successful participation in guideline development were identified.
conclusionThe Impuls working group can be used to specifically address insufficient participation in guideline processes. The structured approach could form a blueprint for other guideline processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39601816What 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.