ArticlePloS one2026
Process evaluation of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial (IMPULSE) to improve psychosocial treatment of patients with psychotic-spectrum disorders in Southeast Europe.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe IMPULSE trial investigated the effectiveness and implementation of a digital psychosocial intervention (DIALOG+) for people with psychosis in five Southeast European countries. DIALOG+ significantly improved patients' quality of life after four treatment sessions. The process evaluation reported here aimed to assess contextual influences on intervention delivery during the trial, to explain the trial findings and generate hypotheses about mechanisms of action by exploring acceptability from the perspectives of clinicians who delivered it and trial participants who received it, and fidelity (was the intervention delivered and received as planned?).
methodA mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted in accordance with the published protocol, guided by theoretical frameworks and the Medical Research Council's guidance for complex interventions. To explore the role of context, data were analysed about the participating services, policy documents, and from focus groups with key stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients were conducted to explore acceptability. Process data (format and content of sessions) were analysed to assess intervention fidelity. Data analysis included descriptive methods, framework and content analysis, and triangulation.
resultsSeveral attributes of context related to health services, including resource limitations, funding priorities, reliance on paper records and lack of community support, potentially negatively impacted DIALOG+ acceptability, fidelity and outcomes. Contextual enablers were also identified, including an appetite for change among key stakeholders that can help overcome contextual barriers. Acceptability of the psychosocial intervention was moderate to high and fidelity was high.
conclusionsIntervention acceptability is likely to have played a key role in ensuring high fidelity, which in turn likely contributed to the intervention's positive impact on patients' quality of life. The high fidelity confirms that the IMPULSE trial findings provide a valid assessment of the intervention as designed. While the identified contextual barriers appear not to have impaired intervention fidelity, acceptability and outcomes, they could pose challenges to the long-term sustainability of the intervention.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered on 29 March 2021, ISRCTN11913964.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.