AzTrials
AzTrials

Participation, PatientDEALNCT04175366

Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Inpatient Care

A study testing Shared Decision Making in people with Participation, Patient and Psychiatric Hospitalization, run by Umeå University at 2 sites in Sweden.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Introduction National guidelines and The Patient Act from 2014 call for an active role for the patient in the decision making process. The role of the doctor is not only to give advice and to prescribe treatments, but also to present different alternatives with pros and cons. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 100 years
What is being tested?
Shared Decision Making
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
160 participants
Where
2 sitesSweden
Study dates
10 Dec 2019to Dec 2022
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 100 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Admission to psychiatric inpatient care.
  • Informed consent to study participation.

Who cannot join

  • Lack of basic language skills in Swedish.
  • Earlier enrollment in the study.

Trial locations and contacts

2 sites in 1 country.

Mikael Sandlund, Professor contact

+46907856495

mikael.sandlund@umu.se

Tove Janarv, MD contact

tove.janarv@umu.se

Sweden2 sites, 2 recruiting
  • Ward 5, Stockholms Norra Psykiatri

    Stockholm, Sverige

    Tove E Janarv, tove.janarv@umu.se

    Recruiting
  • Ward 1 and 2, Umeå Psykiatri

    Umeå

    Tove Janarv, tove.janarv@umu.se

    Recruiting

Other trials in Sweden

About this study

Official title: Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Inpatient Care to Enhance Patient Participation

Introduction

National guidelines and The Patient Act from 2014 call for an active role for the patient in the decision making process. The role of the doctor is not only to give advice and to prescribe treatments, but also to present different alternatives with pros and cons. The method of Shared Decision Making (SDM) is meant to improve patient participation in line with ethical guidelines and legal demands. In summary, SDM consists of three steps:

Read more
  1. To introduce a choice.
  2. To discuss the options.
  3. To make a shared decision. Systematic studies on SDM show patients becoming better informed and less uncertain regarding decisions made, and decisions closer to clinical guidelines compared to treatment as usual (TAU). It is still unresolved if SDM leads to improved clinical outcomes.

Aim

The aim of the study is to investigate outcomes of SDM carried out in psychiatric inpatient care: the patients' perceived participation (primary outcome) and health related outcomes (secondary).

Method

The decision situation in focus for this project is the planning of hospital discharge and future outpatient care. The participants are randomized to either SDM or TAU. Patient participation will be measured by questionnaires, interviews with patients and recorded decision talks. Clinical outcomes will be measured 12 months after discharge.

Preliminary results

A pilot study conducted in 2017-2018 clarified the feasibility of instruments and the intervention, and gave data for power estimation.

Read the detailed description

TITLE

DEAL Shared Decision Making in psychiatric inpatient care to enhance participation and autonomy.

PURPOSE AND AIMS

The purpose is to investigate patients' participation and autonomy in psychiatric inpatient care and the potential of Shared Decision Making (SDM) to strengthen patients' participation in clinical decision making.

PRIMARY OUTCOME:

Does SDM improve patient participation?

SECONDARY OUTCOMES:

Does the use of SDM improve clinical outcomes (length of inpatient days, length of involuntary care, number of inpatient episodes and completed outpatient visits)?

Does outcomes of SDM relate to gender, socio-economical background, severity of disease, level of function, diagnosis and compulsory/voluntary care?

How does patients and doctors experience SDM in psychiatric inpatient care regarding discharge planning?

What are the ethical and legal implications of practicing SDM in Swedish psychiatric care?

SDM DEFINED

SDM as it will be pursued in this project consists of three steps: To introduce choice. To discuss the options. To make a shared decision.

SDM aims to help patients to explore personal preferences, make informed decisions and achieve active participation in the decision-making process. From the perspective of patient autonomy, SDM goes beyond mere informed consent. The practice of SDM is meant to empower the patient to active participation.

METHOD

SDM in psychiatric inpatient care will be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial with SDM vs treatment as usual (TAU). The decision studied is the planning of care in the process of discharge from hospital.

Quantitative methodology is used to measure the level of perceived participation and clinical outcomes. The qualitative parts of the study will focus on the process of implementing SDM in inpatient psychiatric care, and to identify ethically and legally complex situations in the use of SDM.

RECRUITMENT PROCESS

Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The participants will be randomized to either SDM or TAU. The randomization is conducted by slots of 40 persons per ward (20 SDM and 20 TAU) by SPSS random number series.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The primary outcome of patient perceived participation (including the decision making process) will be answered quantitatively with the questionnaires Dyadic OPTION, SURE, Collaborate and SDM-Q-9, and qualitatively with interviews by phone 3 weeks after discharge. The interviews will be audio recorded and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Perceived participation will be measured at inclusion at the ward and after the discharge planning conversation in both the SDM and TAU group with the questionnaires.

Clinical effects (secondary outcomes) will be studied by number of: inpatient days, days of compulsory care, inpatient episodes, completed outpatient visits, completed decisions and emergency visits one year after the discharge. Information will be obtained from clinical records.

Clinical and social factors will be related to level of participation. Data collected: gender, level of education, severity of illness (CGI-S), level of function (GAF) and voluntary/compulsory admission at inclusion, quality of life at discharge (EQ-5D) and clinical diagnosis at discharge (clinical records).

The patient-doctor decision talks will be recorded and analyzed using qualitative content analysis, focusing on ethical and legal questions.

STUDY PLAN

The study starts in the fall of 2019 with a short education for the doctors and staff at the wards in the form of a seminar on SDM in a recovery perspective. The written decision support, a step-by-step manual to facilitate SDM is used in role plays and simulations to prepare the staff. Patients receive an illustrated and easy-to-read information and decision guide.

During 2019-2021 patients will be recruited. This will include informed consent to participate in the study, to collect clinical data from medical records (12 months in retrospect and 12 months prospective from day of discharge), to recorded decision talks and to conduct a telephone interview three weeks after discharge.

Follow up data will be collected in 2021-2022, publication of results is planned in 2022.

DATA ANALYSIS

A power estimation based on the results of the pilot study with a power of 80% and an α error probability of 0.05 gave a Cohens d of 0,672.

G*Power was also used for an a priori estimation with a power of 80% and an α error probability of 0.05. A Cohen´s d of 0.5 was chosen since there is a greater risk of contamination between groups in the randomized study. This gave a group size of n=53 persons needed in each group. The dropout rate in the pilot study of 50% is with adjustments and new approaches still reasonable to estimate to approximately 30%. Group sizes were estimated to n=80 persons and the total inclusion number of N=160 persons.

The groups (SDM vs TAU) will be compared for difference in mean rank, using a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, regarding their perceived participation in the decision process, which is the primary outcome. For the secondary outcomes comparison between the two groups with t-tests, comparing means will include number of inpatient days, number of inpatient episodes, number of involuntary inpatients days and completed outpatient visits.

For other secondary outcomes, such as the relation between patient perceived participation and social/clinical factors, a multifactor analysis will be used.

Being tested
Shared Decision Making
Keywords
Shared Decision Making, Compulsory Care, Psychiatric Care
Medical subject headings
Patient Participation, Psychotic Disorders

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Shared Decision MakingOther

    Shared Decision Making including adapted decision aid.

Study groups in NCT04175366
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Shared Decision MakingExperimentalIntervention with Shared Decision Making procedure regarding decision on planning of care and treatment before discharge.
Receives: Other: Shared Decision Making
Care as usualNo interventionDischarge planning as usual.

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Level of patient perceived participation

    Measurement with the questionnaire Dyadic OPTION, with a sum score of 1-44 where 44 is the highest perceived participation.

    Measured: Measurement 6 weeks after inclusion or at discharge if earlier.

  2. Level of patient perceived participation

    Measurement with the questionnaire SDM-Q-9 with a sum score of 0-45 where 45 is the highest perceived participation.

    Measured: Measurement 6 weeks after inclusion or at discharge if earlier.

  3. Level of patient perceived participation

    Measurement with the questionnaire Collaborate with a sum score of 0-12 where 12 is the highest perceived participation.

    Measured: Measurement 6 weeks after inclusion or at discharge if earlier.

  4. Level of patient perceived participation

    Measurement with the questionnaire SURE, (Sure of myself; Understand information; Risk-benefit ratio; Encouragement) screening test for decisional conflict in patients, with a sum score of 0-4 where 4 is the highest perceived participation.

    Measured: Measurement 6 weeks after inclusion or at discharge if earlier.

Secondary outcomes (10)
  1. Percentage of carried out planned outpatient visits

    Measured: 1 year

  2. Number of rehospitalisations

    Measured: 1 year

  3. Days of compulsory care

    Measured: 1 year

  4. Number of episodes of compulsory care

    Measured: 1 year

  5. Number of inpatient days

    Measured: 1 year

  6. Number of emergency visits

    Measured: 1 year

  7. Days until rehospitalisation

    Measured: 1 year

  8. Percentage of decisions on social support carried out

    Measured: 1 year

  9. Level of quality of Life: EuroQol EQ-5D

    Measurement with the questionnaire EuroQol EQ-5D with a score of 0-1 where 1 is the highest quality of life.

    Measured: Measurement 6 weeks after inclusion or at discharge if earlier.

  10. Level of quality of Life: EuroQol EQ-VAS

    Measurement with the questionnaire EuroQol EQ-VAS with a score of 0-100 where 100 is the highest quality of life.

    Measured: Measurement 6 weeks after inclusion or at discharge if earlier.

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted25 Nov 2019
  2. Study start10 Dec 2019
  3. Primary completion1 Jun 2021 (estimated)
  4. Study completionDec 2022 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Health services research
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Model description
Randomized controlled trial
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
160 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04175366
Sponsor's protocol ID
DEAL2019UmU
Acronym
DEAL
Status last verified
Nov 2019
First submitted
14 Nov 2019
Last updated
19 Dec 2019
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Joosten EA, DeFuentes-Merillas L, de Weert GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CP, de Jong CA. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom. 2008;77(4):219-26. doi: 10.1159/000126073. Epub 2008 Apr 16.

    PubMed 18418028
  • Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4(4):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.

    PubMed 28402085
  • Hamann J, Cohen R, Leucht S, Busch R, Kissling W. Shared decision making and long-term outcome in schizophrenia treatment. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007 Jul;68(7):992-7. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v68n0703.

    PubMed 17685733
  • Stovell D, Morrison AP, Panayiotou M, Hutton P. Shared treatment decision-making and empowerment-related outcomes in psychosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2016 Jul;209(1):23-8. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.158931. Epub 2016 May 19.

    PubMed 27198483
  • Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, Cording E, Tomson D, Dodd C, Rollnick S, Edwards A, Barry M. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Oct;27(10):1361-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6. Epub 2012 May 23.

    PubMed 22618581
  • Slade M. Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care. World Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;16(2):146-153. doi: 10.1002/wps.20412.

    PubMed 28498575

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Shared Decision Making in people with Participation, Patient and Psychiatric Hospitalization, run by Umeå University at 2 sites in Sweden.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Dec 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 2 sites in Sweden. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Mikael Sandlund, Professor (+46907856495, mikael.sandlund@umu.se), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Level of patient perceived participation (time frame: Measurement 6 weeks after inclusion or at discharge if earlier.). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04175366, which also lists 6 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Dec 2019.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in