hig.sePublications
Planned maintenance
A system upgrade is planned for 10/12-2024, at 12:00-13:00. During this time DiVA will be unavailable.
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Consumer outcomes after implementing CommonGround as an approach to shared decision making
Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis.
University of Kansas.
Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis.
Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Psychiatric Services, ISSN 1075-2730, E-ISSN 1557-9700, Vol. 68, no 3, p. 299-302Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective: The authors examined consumer outcomes before and after implementing CommonGround, a computerbased shared decision-making program. Methods: Consumers with severemental 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
American Psychiatric Association , 2017. Vol. 68, no 3, p. 299-302
Keywords [en]
consumer, human, major clinical study, regression analysis, shared decision making, symptom, adult, decision making, decision support system, female, male, medical informatics, mental disease, mental health service, outcome assessment, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Medical Informatics Applications, Mental Disorders, Mental Health Services, Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
National Category
Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-38547DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.201500468Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85014111461OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hig-38547DiVA, id: diva2:1659679
Available from: 2022-05-20 Created: 2022-05-20 Last updated: 2022-05-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus
In the same journal
Psychiatric Services
Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 11 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf