Cited by 26Mental Health and Patient InvolvementPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePsychiatric care and mental health services

Consumer Outcomes After Implementing CommonGround as an Approach to Shared Decision Making

Open access
Salyers, Michelle P., Fukui, Sadaaki, Bonfils, Kelsey A., Firmin, Ruth L., Luther, Lauren, Goscha, Rick, Rapp, Charles A., Holter, Mark C.·2017·Psychiatric Services

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined consumer outcomes before and after implementing CommonGround, a computer-based shared decision-making program. METHODS: Consumers with severe mental illness (N=167) were interviewed prior to implementation and 12 and 18 months later to assess changes in active treatment involvement, symptoms, and recovery-related attitudes. Providers also rated consumers on level of treatment involvement. RESULTS: Most consumers used CommonGround at least once (67%), but few used the program regularly. Mixed-effects regression analyses showed improvement in self-reported symptoms and recovery attitudes. Self-reported treatment involvement did not change; however, for a subset of consumers with the same providers over time (N=83), the providers rated consumers as more active in treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the growing literature on tools to support shared decision making, showing the potential benefits of CommonGround for improving recovery outcomes. More work is needed to better engage consumers in CommonGround and to test the approach with more rigorous methods.

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 · 10.1176/appi.ps.201500468

Cites

18 of 18 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salyers, M. P., Fukui, S., Bonfils, K. A., Firmin, R. L., Luther, L., Goscha, R., Rapp, C. A., & Holter, M. C.
Affiliations
University of Kansas (US)
Venue
Psychiatric Services
Published
2017-03-01
Volume
68
Issue
3
Pages
299-302
ISSN
  • 0022-1597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-2730
  • 1557-9700
OpenAlex
W2558137276
Cited by
26
References
16
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
8.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatric Services (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R34MH093563)
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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
shared decision-making, severe mental illness, computer-based decision support, treatment engagement, recovery attitudes, symptom improvement, consumer outcomes, program implementation
MeSH terms
Adult, Mental Disorders, Decision Making, Decision Support Techniques, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Informatics Applications, Mental Health Services, Outcome Assessment, 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