↓ Skip to main content

Shared Decision Making in mental health care using Routine Outcome Monitoring as a source of information: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Shared Decision Making in mental health care using Routine Outcome Monitoring as a source of information: a cluster randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12888-015-0696-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margot J. Metz, Gerdien C. Franx, Marjolein A. Veerbeek, Edwin de Beurs, Christina M. van der Feltz-Cornelis, Aartjan T. F. Beekman

Abstract

Shared Decision Making (SDM) is a way to empower patients when decisions are made about treatment. In order to be effective agents in this process, patients need access to information of good quality. Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) may provide such information and therefore may be a key element in SDM. This trial tests the effectiveness of SDM using ROM, primarily aiming to diminish decisional conflict of the patient while making decisions about treatment. The degree of decisional conflict, the primary outcome of this study, encompasses personal certainty about choosing an appropriate treatment, information about options, clarification of patient values, support from others and patients experience of an effective decision making process. Secondary outcomes of the study focus on the working alliance between patient and clinician, adherence to treatment, and clinical outcome and quality of life. This article presents the study protocol of a multi-centre two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). The research is conducted in Dutch specialised mental health care teams participating in the ROM Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC), which aims to implement ROM in daily clinical practice. In the intervention teams, ROM is used as a source of information during the SDM process between the patient and clinician. Control teams receive no specific SDM or ROM instructions and apply decision making as usual. Randomisation is conducted at the level of the participating teams within the mental health organisations. A total of 12 teams from 4 organisations and 364 patients participate in the study. Prior to data collection, the intervention teams are trained to use ROM during the SDM process. Data collection will be at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months after inclusion of the patient. Control teams will implement the SDM and ROM model after completion of the study. This study will provide useful information about the effectiveness of ROM within a SDM framework. Furthermore, with practical guidelines this study may contribute to the implementation of SDM using ROM in mental health care. Reporting of the results is expected from December 2016 onwards. Dutch trial register: TC5262 Trial registration date: 24th of June 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 204 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 17%
Researcher 30 15%
Student > Bachelor 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 44 22%
Unknown 36 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 11%
Social Sciences 15 7%
Computer Science 4 2%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 48 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,353,976
of 25,262,379 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#2,237
of 5,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,049
of 403,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#30
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,262,379 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 403,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.