Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The effects of treatment as usual versus a computerized clinical decision aid on shared decision-making in the treatment of psychotic disorders
Roebroek, L. O; Bruins, J; Boonstra, A; Delespaul, P. A; Castelein, S.
Affiliation
  • Roebroek, L. O; Lentis Psychiatric Institute. University of Groningen. Groningen. the Netherlands
  • Bruins, J; Lentis Psychiatric Institute. University of Groningen. Groningen. the Netherlands
  • Boonstra, A; University of Groningen. Faculty of Economics and Business. Groningen. the Netherlands
  • Delespaul, P. A; Maastricht University. Faculty of Psychiatry & Psychology. Maastricht. the Netherlands
  • Castelein, S; Lentis Psychiatric Institute. University of Groningen. Groningen. the Netherlands
Eur. j. psychiatry ; 38(1): [100216], Jan.-Mar. 2024.
Article in English | IBECS | ID: ibc-229237
Responsible library: ES1.1
Localization: ES15.1 - BNCS
ABSTRACT
Background and objectives People with psychotic disorders can experience a lack of active involvement in their decisional process. Clinical decision aids are shared decision-making tools which are currently rarely used in mental healthcare. We examined the effects of Treatment E-Assist (TREAT), a computerized clinical decision aid in psychosis care, on shared decision-making and satisfaction with consultations as assessed by patients. Methods A total of 187 patients with a psychotic disorder participated. They received either treatment as usual in the first phase (TAU1), TREAT in the second phase or treatment as usual in the third phase of the trial (TAU2). The Decisional Conflict Scale was used as primary outcome measure for shared decision-making and patient satisfaction as secondary outcome. Results A linear mixed model analysis found no significant effects between TAU 1 (β = −0.54, SE = 2.01, p = 0.80) and TAU 2 (β = −1.66, SE = 2.63, p = 0.53) compared to TREAT on shared decision-making. High patient rated satisfaction with the consultations was found with no significant differences between TAU 1 (β = 1.48, SE = 1.14, p = 0.20) and TAU 2 (β = 2.26, SE = 1.33, p = 0.09) compared to TREAT. Conclusion We expected TREAT to enhance shared decision-making without decreasing satisfaction with consultations. However, no significant differences on shared decision-making or satisfaction with consultations were found. Our findings suggest that TREAT is safe to implement in psychosis care, but more research is needed to fully understand its effects on the decisional process. (AU)
Subject(s)
Search on Google
Collection: National databases / Spain Database: IBECS Main subject: Psychotic Disorders / Decision Making, Computer-Assisted / Decision Support Techniques Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Eur. j. psychiatry Year: 2024 Document type: Article Institution/Affiliation country: Lentis Psychiatric Institute/the Netherlands / Maastricht University/the Netherlands / University of Groningen/the Netherlands
Search on Google
Collection: National databases / Spain Database: IBECS Main subject: Psychotic Disorders / Decision Making, Computer-Assisted / Decision Support Techniques Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Eur. j. psychiatry Year: 2024 Document type: Article Institution/Affiliation country: Lentis Psychiatric Institute/the Netherlands / Maastricht University/the Netherlands / University of Groningen/the Netherlands
...