15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Momentum trial: the efficacy of using a smartphone application to promote patient activation and support shared decision making in people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in outpatient treatment settings: a randomized controlled single-blind trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Shared decision making (SDM) is often defined as an interactive process that ensures that both patient and practitioner are actively involved in the treatment and that they share all relevant information to arrive at a mental health decision. Previous SDM interventions have found improvements in outcomes such as personal recovery, higher perceived involvement in treatment decisions and knowledge about one’s disease. Still, SDM occurs less frequently in mental health care than in primary care. Electronic aids developed to support patient activation and SDM could be a promising mean to engage patients in their mental healthcare.

          The aim of this trial is to investigate the effects of using a smartphone app to promote patient activation and support SDM for people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders in an outpatient treatment setting.

          Methods

          This randomised controlled trial will allocate participants to one of two groups: (1) Intervention group: smartphone app and TAU (treatment as usual) or (2) Control group: TAU without the smartphone app. A total sample size of 260 people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizotypal or delusional disorder will be recruited from five OPUS teams (a specialized early intervention program) in Denmark between 2019 and 2020. The intervention will last for 6 months with data collection at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months. Primary outcome will be self-perceived patient activation. Secondary outcomes will be feeling of being prepared for SDM; self-efficacy; working alliance; treatment satisfaction; positive and negative symptoms; level of functioning; hope; and perceived efficacy in patient-provider interaction. Patients’ and health providers’ preferences in clinical decision making will be assessed. Patients’ usage and perceived usefulness of the app will be explored.

          Discussion

          This study will investigate the efficacy of using the smartphone app to support people with severe mental illness in engaging in their own healthcare management. The study may provide evidence to the idea that linking client and practitioner in digital solutions can have advantages in facilitating SDM in mental health. The trial will provide new knowledge of whether a digital healthcare solution can improve patient activation and support SDM for people with severe mental illness.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03554655 Registered on: June 13, 2018.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure.

          The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is a 22-item measure that assesses patient knowledge, skill, and confidence for self-management. The measure was developed using Rasch analyses and is an interval level, unidimensional, Guttman-like measure. The current analysis is aimed at reducing the number of items in the measure while maintaining adequate precision. We relied on an iterative use of Rasch analysis to identify items that could be eliminated without loss of significant precision and reliability. With each item deletion, the item scale locations were recalibrated and the person reliability evaluated to check if and how much of a decline in precision of measurement resulted from the deletion of the item. The data used in the analysis were the same data used in the development of the original 22-item measure. These data were collected in 2003 via a telephone survey of 1,515 randomly selected adults. Principal Findings. The analysis yielded a 13-item measure that has psychometric properties similar to the original 22-item version. The scores for the 13-item measure range in value from 38.6 to 53.0 (on a theoretical 0-100 point scale). The range of values is essentially unchanged from the original 22-item version. Subgroup analysis suggests that there is a slight loss of precision with some subgroups. The results of the analysis indicate that the shortened 13-item version is both reliable and valid.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes.

            Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the empirical evidence linking patient outcomes and SDM, when the decision-making process has been explicitly measured, and to identify under what measurement perspectives SDM is associated with which types of patient outcomes (affective-cognitive, behavioral, and health). PubMed (through December 2012) and hand search of article bibliographies. Studies were included if they empirically 1) measured SDM in the context of a patient-clinician interaction and 2) evaluated the relationship between SDM and at least 1 patient outcome. Study results were categorized by SDM measurement perspective (patient-reported, clinician-reported, or observer-rated) and outcome type (affective-cognitive, behavioral, or health). Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-three used patient-reported measures of SDM, 6 used observer-rated measures, and 2 used clinician-reported measures. Ninety-seven unique patient outcomes were assessed; 51% affective-cognitive, 28% behavioral, and 21% health. Only 43% of assessments (n = 42) found a significant and positive relationship between SDM and the patient outcome. This proportion varied by SDM measurement perspective and outcome category. It was found that 52% of outcomes assessed with patient-reported SDM were significant and positive, compared with 21% with observer-rated and 0% with clinician-reported SDM. Regardless of measurement perspective, SDM was most likely to be associated with affective-cognitive patient outcomes (54%), compared with 37% of behavioral and 25% of health outcomes. The relatively small number of studies precludes meta-analysis. Because the study inclusion and exclusion criteria required both an empirical measure of SDM and an assessment of the association between that measure and a patient outcome, most included studies were observational in design. SDM, when perceived by patients as occurring, tends to result in improved affective-cognitive outcomes. Evidence is lacking for the association between empirical measures of SDM and patient behavioral and health outcomes. © The Author(s) 2014.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Development and validation of the State Hope Scale.

              Defining hope as a cognitive set comprising agency (belief in one's capacity to initiate and sustain actions) and pathways (belief in one's capacity to generate routes) to reach goals, the Hope Scale was developed and validated previously as a dispositional self-report measure of hope (Snyder et al., 1991). The present 4 studies were designed to develop and validate a measure of state hope. The 6-item State Hope Scale is internally consistent and reflects the theorized agency and pathways components. The relationships of the State Hope Scale to other measures demonstrate concurrent and discriminant validity; moreover, the scale is responsive to events in the lives of people as evidenced by data gathered through both correlational and causal designs. The State Hope Scale offers a brief, internally consistent, and valid self-report measure of ongoing goal-directed thinking that may be useful to researchers and applied professionals.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                tobias.vitger@regionh.dk
                Stephen.01.Austin@regionh.dk
                Lone.Petersen@regionh.dk
                esbt@regionsjaelland.dk
                Merete.Nordentoft@regionh.dk
                Lisa.korsbek.christensen@regionh.dk
                Journal
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-244X
                17 June 2019
                17 June 2019
                2019
                : 19
                : 185
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Competence Centre for Rehabilitation and Recovery, The Mental Health Centre Ballerup, The Mental Health Services of the Capital Region, Ballerup, Denmark
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0639 1882, GRID grid.480615.e, Psychiatric Research Unit, , Region Zealand Psychiatry, ; Slagelse, Denmark
                [3 ]The Mental Health Centre Slagelse, The Mental Health Services of Zealand, Slagelse, Denmark
                [4 ]The Research Unit of the Mental Health Centre Copenhagen, The Mental Health Services of the Capital Region, Copenhagen, Denmark
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7492-5493
                Article
                2143
                10.1186/s12888-019-2143-2
                6580508
                31208376
                2bab8564-7b1b-4256-9757-8d61044dc5d5
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 2 January 2019
                : 6 May 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007437, TrygFonden;
                Award ID: 115441
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                shared decision making,patient activation,schizophrenia,schizotypal,early intervention,first-episode psychosis,mhealth,randomized clinical trial

                Comments

                Comment on this article