Background Assessment of users' information and decision-making needs is one key step in the development of decision-support interventions.

BackgroundIn Germany, inpatient psychotherapy plays a unique role in the treatment of patients with common mental disorders of higher severity. In addition to psychiatric inpatient services, psychotherapeutic hospital treatment and psychosomatic rehabilitation are offered as independent inpatient treatment options. This meta-analysis aims to provide systematic evidence for psychotherapeutic hospital treatment in Germany regarding its effects on symptomatic and interpersonal impairment.MethodologyRelevant papers were identified by electronic database search and hand search. Randomized controlled trials as well as naturalistic prospective studies (including post-therapy and follow-up assessments) evaluating psychotherapeutic hospital treatment of mentally ill adults in Germany were included. Outcomes were required to be quantified by either the Symptom-Checklist (SCL-90-R or short versions) or the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-64 or short versions). Effect sizes (Hedges’ g) were combined using random effect models.Principal FindingsSixty-seven papers representing 59 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis yielded a medium within-group effect size for symptom change at discharge (g = 0.72; 95% CI 0.68–0.76), with a small reduction to follow-up (g = 0.61; 95% CI 0.55–0.68). Regarding interpersonal problems, a small effect size was found at discharge (g = 0.35; 95% CI 0.29–0.41), which increased to follow-up (g = 0.48; 95% CI 0.36–0.60). While higher impairment at intake was associated with a larger effect size in both measures, longer treatment duration was related to lower effect sizes in SCL GSI and to larger effect sizes in IIP Total.ConclusionsPsychotherapeutic hospital treatment may be considered an effective treatment. In accordance with Howard’s phase model of psychotherapy outcome, the present study demonstrated that symptom distress changes more quickly and strongly than interpersonal problems. Preliminary analyses show impairment at intake and treatment duration to be the strongest outcome predictors. Further analyses regarding this relationship are required.

BackgroundPatient decision aids are one possibility for enabling and encouraging patients to participate in medical decisions.ObjectiveThis paper aims to describe patients’ information and decision-making needs as a prerequisite for the development of high-quality, web-based patient decision aids for affective disorders.DesignWe conducted an online cross-sectional survey by using a self-administered questionnaire including items on Internet use, online health information needs, role in decision making, and important treatment decisions, performing descriptive and comparative statistical analyses.ParticipantsA total of 210 people with bipolar disorder/mania as well as 112 people with unipolar depression participated in the survey.ResultsBoth groups specified general information search as their most relevant information need and decisions on treatment setting (inpatient or outpatient) as well as decisions on pharmacological treatment as the most difficult treatment decisions. For participants with unipolar depression, decisions concerning psychotherapeutic treatment were also especially difficult. Most participants of both groups preferred shared decisions but experienced less shared decisions than desired.Discussion and conclusionOur results show the importance of information for patients with affective disorders, with a focus on pharmacological treatment and on the different treatment settings, and highlight patients’ requirements to be involved in the decision-making process. Since our sample reported a chronic course of disease, we do not know if our results are applicable for newly diagnosed patients. Further studies should consider how the reported needs could be addressed in health care practice.

Our results confirm the importance of offering patient decision aids for people with anxiety disorders that encourage patients to participate in decision making by providing information about the pros and cons of evidence-based treatment options.

Guidelines recommend stepped and collaborative care models (SCM) for depression. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex guideline-based SCM for depressed patients. German primary care units were cluster-randomised into intervention (IG) or control group (CG) (3:1 ratio). Adult routine care patients with PHQ-9 ≥ 5 points could participate and received SCM in IG and treatment as usual (TAU) in CG. Primary outcome was change in PHQ-9 from baseline to 12 months (hypothesis: greater reduction in IG). A linear mixed model was calculated with group as fixed effect and practice as random effect, controlling for baseline PHQ-9 (intention-to-treat). 36 primary care units were randomised to IG and 13 to CG. 36 psychotherapists, 6 psychiatrists and 7 clinics participated in SCM. 737 patients were included (IG: n = 569 vs. CG: n = 168); data were available for 60% (IG) and 64% (CG) after 12 months. IG showed 2.4 points greater reduction [95% confidence interval (CI): −3.4 to −1.5, p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 0.45] (adjusted PHQ-9 mean change). Odds of response [odds ratio: 2.8; 95% CI: 1.6 to 4.7] and remission [odds ratio: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.58 to 6.26] were higher in IG. Guideline-based SCM can improve depression care.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract