Cited by 32Mental Health and Patient InvolvementPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Policy Implementation Science

Patient involvement in developing a patient‐targeted feedback intervention after depression screening in primary care within the randomized controlled trial GET.FEEDBACK.GP

Open access
Seeralan, Tharanya, Härter, Martin, Koschnitzke, Cornelia, Scholl, Michael, Kohlmann, Sebastian, Lehmann, Marco, Eisele, Marion, Braunschneider, Lea‐Elena +5 more·2021·Health Expectations

Abstract

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly required in mental health services research. To empower patients to actively address depression, the GET.FEEDBACK.GP study evaluates a patient‐targeted feedback intervention after depression screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9). Objective: To refine the patient‐targeted feedback from a previous study within a participatory research team (PRT) by conducting workshops to investigate patients' needs and preferences for feedback. To evaluate the process and outcome of PPI. Design: Patient and public involvement was carried out on the levels of collaboration and consultation. A PRT of patient partners and researchers planned and conducted three workshops with patients. Patients' needs were investigated using a focus group. Participants prioritized needs, discussed feedback drafts and evaluated two drafts using cognitive debriefings. Researchers of the PRT communicated the results at project level. PPI was evaluated using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tools (PPEET). Setting and Participants: A purposeful sampling of N = 12 patients with experiences of depression participated in at least one workshop. Results: Relevant content‐related needs about feedback (eg no distinction between severe and moderate symptoms), recommendations for action and patient‐relevant information were considered. Needs for comprehensible, valuing, nonstigmatizing language and design elements (eg dimensional bar) were implemented. Workshops and PRT were positively evaluated. Discussion and Conclusions: Patient and public involvement influenced the content, wording and design of the feedback. Strengths include two levels of PPI, methodical diversity and purposeful sampling. Limitations include the lack of inclusion of patients who are unaware of their depression. The evaluated PPI concept can be useful for future studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hex.13039

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The feedback intervention is a result of an elaborated multistage development process combining clinical, research, and IT/graphic design expertise, empirical evidence, and first-hand patients' needs and preferences.

    “First, the feedback intervention is a result of an elaborated multistage development process, which combined strengths and perspectives of different domains: clinical, research, and IT/graphic design expertise, empirical evidence, and first-hand patients' needs and preferences (Seeralan et al., 2020).”

    From The efficacy of automated feedback after internet-based depression screening: Study protocol of the German, three-armed, randomised controlled trial DISCOVER (2021) · cites this paper as Seeralan et al., 2020

    The Methods (Design and Workshops; pages unavailable) describe a multistage process involving researchers, patient partners, workshops, feedback drafts and graphic-design choices. The Discussion says patients’ preferences were incorporated where they did not conflict with known evidence or clinical considerations. Our copy does not establish that IT or graphic-design experts contributed to the process, so it does not support the full list of expertise attributed to the source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [54]Zumbach J, Spinath B, Schahn J, Friedrich M, Kögel M. Entwicklung einer Kurzskala zur Lehrevaluation [Development of a short scale for teaching evaluation]. In Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation VI. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Unipress; 2007: 317‐ 325.
  2. [56]Abelson J, Li K, Wilson G, Shields K, Schneider C, Boesveld S. Supporting quality public and patient engagement in health system organizations: development and usability testing of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. Health Expect. 2016; 19(4): 817‐ 827. 26113295 PMC5152717
  3. [66]Lumsden J, Leung R, Fritz J. Designing a mobile transcriber application for adult literacy education: a case study. Paper presented at: International Conference Mobile Learning (IADIS) June 28‐30, 2005; Qawra, Malta.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seeralan, T., Härter, M., Koschnitzke, C., Scholl, M., Kohlmann, S., Lehmann, M., Eisele, M., Braunschneider, L., Marx, G., Scherer, M., Löwe, B., Magaard, J. L., & Brütt, A. L.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
  • Member of the Participatory Research Team Hamburg Germany
  • Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Seeralan, Tharanya
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-04-14
Volume
24
Issue
S1
Pages
95-112
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W3015689979
Cited by
32
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Carl von Ossiezky University of Oldenburg (submittedVersion)
Funders
Federal Joint Committee (01VSF17033)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
patient and public involvement, depression screening, PHQ-9, primary care, patient needs and preferences, feedback control design, stigma, cognitive debriefing
MeSH terms
Depression, Feedback, Humans, Mental Health Services, Patient Participation, Primary Health 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