CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 382Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMental Health and Patient InvolvementHealth Policy Implementation Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: A cluster-randomized controlled trial

Loh, Andreas, Simon, Daniela, Wills, Celia E., Kriston, Levente, Niebling, Wilhelm, Härter, Martin·2007·Patient Education and Counseling
DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.023
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective Patient-centred depression care approaches should better address barriers of insufficient patient information and involvement in the treatment decision process. Additional research is needed to test the effect of increased patient participation on outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess, if patient participation in decision-making via a shared decision-making intervention leads to improved treatment adherence, satisfaction, and clinical outcome without increasing consultation time.Methods Cluster-randomized controlled intervention study based on physician training and patient-centered decision aid compared to usual care in primary care settings in Südbaden region of Germany. Twenty-three primary care physicians treating 405 patients with newly diagnosed depression were enrolled. Patient involvement was measured with the patient perceived involvement in care scale (PICS) and a patient participation scale (MSH-scale). Patient satisfaction was measured by the CSQ-8 questionnaire. Treatment adherence was evaluated by patient and provider self-report. Depression severity and remission outcomes were assessed with the Brief PHQ-D.Results Physician facilitation of patient participation improved significantly and to a greater extent in the intervention compared to the control group. There was no intervention effect for depression severity reduction. Doctor facilitation of patient participation, patient-rated involvement, and physician assessment of adherence improved only in the intervention group. Patient satisfaction at post-intervention was higher in the intervention group compared to the control group. The consultation time did not differ between groups.Conclusion A shared decision-making intervention was better than usual care for improving patient participation in treatment decision-making, and patient satisfaction without increasing consultation time. Additional research is needed to model causal linkages in the decision-making process in regard to outcomes.Practice implications The study results encourage the implementation of patient participation in primary care of depression.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.023

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Wittchen, 2000, Häufigkeiten und Versorgung von Depressionen Ergebnisse des bundesweiten Zusatzsurveys “Psychische Störungen”, Fortschr Med, 118, 4
  2. Loh, 2004, Information and participation interests of patients with depression in clinical decision making in primary care [Informations- und Partizipationsinteressen depressiver Patienten bei der medizinischen Entscheidungsfindung in der hausärztlichen Versorgung.], Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich, 98, 101
  3. Härter M, Bermejo I Niebling W, (Ed.), Praxismanual depression—successfuly implementing diagnostic therapy guidelines. [Praxismanual Depression – Diagnostik und Therapie erfolgreich umsetzen] Köln: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag, 2007.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 382

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Loh, A., Simon, D., Wills, C. E., Kriston, L., Niebling, W., & Härter, M.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Loh, Andreas
ORCID
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-08
Volume
67
Issue
3
Pages
324-332
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.023
OpenAlex
W1995424800
Cited by
382
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 25
FWCI
25.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
shared decision-making, depression, primary care, patient participation, patient-centered care, decision aids, physician training, medication adherence, patient satisfaction, depression severity, remission, consultation time
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cooperative Behavior, Decision Making, Decision Support Techniques, Depressive Disorder, Female, Germany, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Family, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Time Factors, Cluster Analysis, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Patient-Centered Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review