Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Psychiatry
Published in: BMC Psychiatry 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

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

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

Published in: BMC Psychiatry | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods/Design

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.

Discussion

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.

Trial registration

Dutch trial register: TC5262
Trial registration date: 24th of June 2015
Literature
1.
Elwyn G, Forsch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P. Shared Decision Making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1361–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Deegan PE, Drake RE. Shared decision making and medication management in the recovery process. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57:11.CrossRef
4.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (Or, it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–92.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:651–61.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Stacey D, Légare F, Col NF, Bennett CI, Barry MJ, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions (review). The Cochrane Collaboration. 2014; doi:10.​1002/​14651858.​CD001431.​pub4.
7.
Malm U, Ivarsson B, Allebeck P, Falloon IRH. Integrated care in schizophrenia: a 2-year randomised controlled study of two community-based treatment programs. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2003;107:415–23.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Loh A, Simon D, Wills CE, Kriston L, Niebling W, Härter M. The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67:324–32.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Loh A, Leonhart R, Wills CE, Simon D, Härter M. The impact of patient participation on adherence and clinical outcome in primary care of depression. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65:69–78.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Hamann J, Langer B, Winkler V, Busch R, Cohen R, Leucht S, et al. Shared decision making for in-patients with schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2006;114:265–73.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Clever SL, Ford DE, Rubenstein LV, Rost KM, Meredith LS, Sherbourne CD, et al. Primary care patients’ involvement in decision-making is associated with improvement in depression. Med Care. 2006;44(5):398–405.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Westermann GMA, Verheij F, Winkens B, Verhulst FC, Van Oort FVA. Structured shared decision-making using dialogue and visualization: a randomised controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90:74–81.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Delas Cuevas C, Penate W, de Rivera L. To what extent is treatment adherence of psychiatric patients influenced by their participation in shared decision making? Patient Preference and Adherence. 2014;8:1547–53.CrossRef
14.
Helmus K, Bezemer M, Slooff C. Shared decision making binnen de zorg voor mensen met psychose. Psychopraktijk. 2011;3:30–4.CrossRef
15.
Goossensen A, Zijlstra P, Koopmanschap M. Measuring shared decision making processes in psychiatry: skills versus patient satisfaction. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67:50–6.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Loh A, Simon D, Hennig B, Härter M, Elwyn G. The assessment of depressive patients’ involvement in decision making in audio-taped primary care consultations. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(3):314–8.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Adams JR, Drake RE, Wolford GL. Shared Decision-Making Preferences of People with Severe Mental Illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2007;59:9.
18.
19.
Hamann J, Cohen R, Leucht S, Busch R, Kissling W. Do patients with schizophrenia wish to be involved in decisions about their medical treatment? Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(12):2382–4.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Bunn MH, O’Connor AM, Tansey MS, Jones BD, Stinson LE. Characteristics of patients with schizophrenia who express certainty or uncertainty about continuing treatment with depot neuroleptic medication. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 1997;11(5):238–48.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Arora NK, McHorney CA. Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate? Med Care. 2000;38(3):335–41.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Beurs de E, ME H d-G, van YR R, van der NJ W, Giltay EJ, van MS N, et al. Routine outcome monitoring in the Netherlands: practical experiences with a web-based strategy for the assessment of treatment outcome in clinical practice. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2011;18(1):1–12. doi:10.​1002/​cpp.​696.CrossRef
23.
Jong de K, Sluis van P, Nugter AM, Heiser WJ, Spinhoven P. Understanding the differential impact of outcome monitoring: therapist variables that moderate feedback effects in a randomised clinical trial. Psychother Res. 2012;22(4):464–74.CrossRef
24.
Jong de K, Timman R, Hakkaart-van Royen L, Vermeulen P, Kooiman K, Passchier J, et al. The effect of outcome monitoring feedback to clinicians and patients in short and long-term psychotherapy: a randomised controlled trial. Psychother Res. 2014;24(6):629–39.CrossRef
25.
Lambert M. Presidential Address: What we have learned from a decade of research aimed at improving psychotherapy outcome in routine care. Psychother Res. 2007;17:1–14.CrossRef
26.
Sonsbeek AMS, Hutschemaekers GJM, Veerman JW, Tiemens BG. Effective components of feedback from Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) in youth mental health care: study protocol of a three-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:3.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
27.
Verbraak M, Theuws S, Verdellen C. ROM en benchmarken: een voorbeeld van een geïntegreerde aanpak. Directieve therapie. 2015;35:2.
28.
Carlier IVE, Meuldijk D, van Vliet IM, van Fenema EM, van der Wee NJA, Zitman FG. Routine outcome monitoring and feedback on physical or mental health status: evidence and theory. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:104–10.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Knaup C, Koesters M, Schoefer D, Becker T, Puschner B. Effect of feedback of treatment outcome in specialist mental healthcare: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;195(1):15–22.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Lambert MJ, Whipple JL, Hawkins EJ, Vermeersch DA, Nielsen SJ, Smart DW. Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcome? A meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2003;10(3):288–301.CrossRef
31.
Sapyta J, Riemer M, Bickman L. Feedback to clinicians: Theory, research and practice. J Clin Psychol. 2005;61:145–53.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Davidson K, Perry A, Bell L. Would continuous feedback of patient’s clinical outcomes to clinicians improve NHS psychological therapy services? Critical analysis and assessment of quality of existing studies. Psychol Psychother Theory Res Pract. 2015;88(1):21–37.CrossRef
33.
Lambert MJ. Prevention of Treatment Failure: The use of Measuring, Monitoring, and Feedback in Clinical Practice. Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 2010.CrossRef
34.
Feltz van der-Cornelis C, Andrea H, Kessels E, Duivenvoorden H, Biemans H, Metz M. Shared Decision Making in combinatie met ROM bij patiënten met gecombineerde lichamelijke en psychische klachten; een klinisch empirische verkenning. Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2014;56(6):375–84.
35.
Schouten LM, Hulscher ME, Everdingen van JJ, Huijsman R, Grol RP. Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review. BMJ. 2008;336(7659):1491–4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
36.
Franx, GC. Quality improvement in mental health care: the transfer of knowledge into practice. Utrecht: Trimbos-institute; 2012.
37.
Øvretveit J, Bate P, Cleary P, Cretin S, Gustafson D, McInnes K, et al. Quality collaboratives: lessons from research. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(4):345–51.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Légaré F, LeBlanc A, Robitaille H, Turcotte S. The decisional conflict scale: moving from the individual to the dyad level. Z. Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundh Wesen (ZEFQ). 2012;106:247–52.CrossRef
39.
O’Connor AM. User-Manual-Decisional Conflict Scale (16 item statement format). Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 1993, updated 2010.
40.
van Widenfelt BM, Treffers PDA, de Beurs E, Siebelink BM, Koudijs E. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of assessment instruments used in psychological research with children and families. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2005;8:2.
41.
Tracey TJ, Kokotovic AM. Factor structure of the working alliance inventory. Psychol Assess. 1989;1(3):207–10.CrossRef
42.
Vertommen H, Vervaeke GAC. Werkalliantievragenlijst (WAV). Vertaling voor experimenteel gebruik van de WAI (Horvart & Greenberg, 1986). Departement Psychologie KU Leuven, 1990.
43.
Stinckens N, Ulburghs A, Claes L. De werkalliantie als sleutelelement in het therapiegebeuren. Meting met behulp van de WAV-12, de Nederlandstalige verkorte versie van de Working Alliance Inventory. Tijdschrift Klinische Psychologie. 2009;1:44–60.
44.
Bordin E. The generalizability of the psycho-analytic concept of the working alliance. Psychother Theory Res Pract Train. 1979;16:252–60.CrossRef
45.
Ardito RB, Rabellino D. Therapeutic alliance and outcome of psychotherapy: historical excursus, measurements, and prospects for research. Front. Psychol. 2011. doi: 10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2011.​00270.
46.
Busseri MA, Tyler JD. Interchangeability of the Working Alliance Inventory and Working Alliance Inventory Short Form. Psychol Assess. 2003;15:193–7.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Smits D, Luyckx K. Structural Characteristics and external correlates of the working alliance inventory short form. Psychol Assess. 2015;27(2):545–51.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Nieuwenhuizen van Ch, Schene AH, Koeter MWJ. Manchester Short Assessment of quality of life (MANSA). 2000.
49.
Jong de K, Nugter MA, Lambert MJ, Burlingame GM. Handleiding voor afname en scoring van de Outcome Questionnaire OQ-45.2. Salt Lake City :OQ Measures LLC; Oktober 2008.
50.
Priebe S, Huxley P, Knight S, Evans S. Application and results of the Manchester short assessment of quality of live (MANSA). Int J Soc Psychiatry. 1999;45(1):7–12.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Scholl I, Koelewijn-van Loon M, Sepucha K, Elwyn G, Légaré F, Härter M, et al. Measurement of shared decison making – a review of instruments. Science Direct. 2011;105:313–24.
52.
Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Buchholz A, Härter M. Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire – physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88:284–90.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Rodenburg-Vandenbussche S, Pieterse AH, Kroonenberg PM, Scholl I, Weijden van der T, Luyten GPM, et al. 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; doi: 10.​1371/​journal.​pone.​0132158.
54.
Trimbos instituut. Implementatie van ROM in de dagelijkse zorgpraktijk. Resultaten van enquêtes onder behandelaren van GGZ instellingen en vrijgevestigde behandelaren. Salt Lake City: OQ Measures LLC; 2014.
55.
56.
Lipsey MW. Design sensitivity: statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park: Sage; 1990. p. 137.
57.
Killip S, Mahfoud Z, Pearce K. What is an Intracluster Correlation Coefficient? Curcial concepts for primary care researchers. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(3):204–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Shared Decision Making in mental health care using Routine Outcome Monitoring as a source of information: a cluster randomised controlled trial
Authors
Margot J. Metz
Gerdien C. Franx
Marjolein A. Veerbeek
Edwin de Beurs
Christina M. van der Feltz-Cornelis
Aartjan T. F. Beekman
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Psychiatry / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-244X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0696-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Psychiatry 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Effectiveness of guided self-help in decreasing expressed emotion in family caregivers of people diagnosed with depression in Thailand: a randomised controlled trial

Research article

Violent and non-violent methods of attempted and completed suicide in Swedish young men: the role of early risk factors

Research article

Driving behaviour in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Research article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a communication-focused therapy for pre-school children with autism: results from a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Randomized controlled trial of computer-based treatment of social cognition in schizophrenia: the TRuSST trial protocol

Research article

Prevalence and predictors of antenatal depressive symptoms among Chinese women in their third trimester: a cross-sectional survey