Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41857846›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Psychosocial risk screening in the inpatient care of physically ill patients: study protocol for a feasibility study.

Stephan Christoph Feder, Zuhal Simsek, Joe J Simon, Mechthild Hartmann, Bastian Bruns, Till Johannes Bugaj, Jonas Hoch, Martin Dugas, Hans-Christoph Friederich

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06651164 (Psychosomatic Risk Screening in the Inpatient Care of Physically Ill Patients), 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.

NCT06651164 nacompletednot on this map

Psychosomatic Risk Screening in the Inpatient Care of Physically Ill Patients: a Feasibility Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorHeidelberg UniversityRan2024 to 2025Enrolled142ConditionsCardiovascular DiseasesArmspsychosocial risk screening
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

9 authors.

Stephan Christoph Feder *Department of General Internal Medicine, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany StephanChristoph.Feder@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-7040-9706
Zuhal Simsek *Department of General Internal Medicine, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Joe J SimonDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Mechthild HartmannDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Bastian BrunsDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Till Johannes BugajDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8287-2635
Jonas HochDepartment of Internal Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-5578-9267
Martin DugasInstitute of Medical Informatics, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9740-0788
Hans-Christoph FriederichDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe length of hospital stay for patients with physical illnesses is longer for those with mental health comorbidity, particularly in the presence of severe physical multimorbidity. Integrating psychosocial risk screening at hospital admission, with a subsequent care pathway, could address psychosomatic and social care needs early and reduce length of stay. However, implementation may be hindered by organisational factors such as increased staff workload and timely integration into existing processes. In addition, patient factors such as low acceptance of screening and follow-up may affect uptake. This pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of implementing this integrated approach to screening and follow-up in preparation for a confirmatory trial.

methodsThe present study is a single centre, randomised feasibility study conducted on a pilot ward. Patients will be enrolled and assigned to the intervention or the control group. Only the intervention group will receive tablet-based psychosocial risk screening conducted by ward physicians or medical students in their practical year. If the psychosomatic screening is positive and the patient agrees, he or she is referred to the psychosomatic consultation service. If the social service screening is positive, the patient will be seen by a social worker. The main objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a full-sized confirmatory trial. An informed consent rate of 30% of eligible patients is set as the feasibility criterion. A study period of 4 months is planned for the feasibility study. The feasibility study will be analysed using descriptive statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of Heidelberg University (S-301/2024) on 24 May 2024. The results of this feasibility study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06651164.

Indexed as

InpatientsMass ScreeningMental DisordersFeasibility StudiesFemaleHospitalizationHumansLength of StayPilot ProjectsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentFeasibility StudiesINTERNAL MEDICINEPsychometricsPsychosocial Intervention

Identifiers

PMID41857846
PMCPMC13007114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.