» Articles » PMID: 29944712

Effectiveness of a Multi-facetted Blended EHealth Intervention During Intake Supporting Patients and Clinicians in Shared Decision Making: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial in a Specialist Mental Health Outpatient Setting

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2018 Jun 27
PMID 29944712
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of a multi-facetted blended eHealth intervention, called SDM-Digital Intake (SDM-DI), in which patients and clinicians are supported in Shared Decision Making during the intake process.

Methods: The study is a two-arm matched-paired cluster Randomised Controlled Trial in a specialist mental health outpatient setting with two conditions: SDM-DI and Intake As Usual (IAU). Four intake teams were allocated to each arm. All patients who followed an intake, were asked to participate if they were capable to complete questionnaires. Decisional Conflict (DC), referring to patients' engagement and satisfaction with clinical decisions, was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were patient participation, applying Shared Decision Making (SDM), working alliance, treatment adherence and symptom severity. Effects were measured at two weeks (T1) and two months (T2) after intake. Multilevel regression and intention-to-treat analyses were used. Additionally, the influence of subgroups and intervention adherence on DC were explored.

Results: At T1, 200 patients participated (47% intervention, 53% control), and at T2 175 patients (47% intervention, 53% control). At T1 and T2, no differences were found between conditions on DC. Subgroup analyses showed that effects of SDM-DI on DC were not modified by primary diagnoses mood, anxiety and personality disorders. Compared to IAU, at T2, patients reported positive effects of SDM-DI on SDM (β 7.553, p = 0.038, 95%CI:0.403-14.703, d = 0.32) and reduction of symptoms (β -7.276, p = 0.0497, 95%CI:-14.544--0.008, d = -0.43). No effects were found on patient participation, working alliance and treatment adherence. Exploratory analyses demonstrated that if SDM was applied well, patients reported less DC (β = -0.457, p = 0.000, 95%CI:-0.518--0.396, d = -1.31), which was associated with better treatment outcomes.

Conclusion: Although, this trial fails to demonstrate that SDM-DI by itself is sufficient to reduce DC, the results are encouraging for further efforts in improving and implementing the SDM intervention.

Citing Articles

Effectiveness of shared decision making strategies for stroke prevention among patients with atrial fibrillation: cluster randomized controlled trial.

Ozanne E, Barnes G, Brito J, Cameron K, Cavanaugh K, Greene T BMJ. 2025; 388:e079976.

PMID: 39788611 PMC: 11713231. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-079976.


Supported Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Outcomes for People With Mental Ill Health.

Francis C, Hazelton M, Wilson R Health Expect. 2024; 27(6):e70134.

PMID: 39711033 PMC: 11664045. DOI: 10.1111/hex.70134.


Trends, challenges, and priorities for shared decision making in mental health: The first umbrella review.

Chmielowska M, Zisman-Ilani Y, Saunders R, Pilling S Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2023; 69(4):823-840.

PMID: 36680367 PMC: 10240653. DOI: 10.1177/00207640221140291.


Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions.

Aoki Y, Yaju Y, Utsumi T, Sanyaolu L, Storm M, Takaesu Y Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022; 11:CD007297.

PMID: 36367232 PMC: 9650912. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007297.pub3.


Peer-Facilitated Decision Making in Mental Health: Promises, Pitfalls, and Recommendations for Research and Practice.

Thomas E, Simmons M, Mathai C, Salzer M Psychiatr Serv. 2022; 74(4):401-406.

PMID: 36164774 PMC: 10405208. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.20220086.


References
1.
Rodenburg-Vandenbussche S, Pieterse A, Kroonenberg P, Scholl I, van der Weijden T, Luyten G . Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary Care. PLoS One. 2015; 10(7):e0132158. PMC: 4494856. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132158. View

2.
Dahlqvist Jonsson P, Schon U, Rosenberg D, Sandlund M, Svedberg P . Service users' experiences of participation in decision making in mental health services. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2015; 22(9):688-97. DOI: 10.1111/jpm.12246. View

3.
Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A . Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2013; 94(3):291-309. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.10.031. View

4.
Metz M, Elfeddali I, Krol D, Veerbeek M, de Beurs E, Beekman A . A digital intake approach in specialized mental health care: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry. 2017; 17(1):86. PMC: 5341197. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-017-1247-9. View

5.
Puschner B, Becker T, Mayer B, Jordan H, Maj M, Fiorillo A . Clinical decision making and outcome in the routine care of people with severe mental illness across Europe (CEDAR). Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2015; 25(1):69-79. PMC: 6998762. DOI: 10.1017/S204579601400078X. View