Skip to main content
. 2015 Oct 2;112(40):665–671. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0665

eTable 1a. Studies in which interventions improved patient-relevant outcomes compared with control groups.

Study Underlying main disorderCase numbers = Intervention group vs. control group at start/end of study Measures in intervention group and control group Patient-relevant outcomes (measurement instruments)*1
(23) Status post acute coronary syndromen = 72/67 vs. 72/69 Intervention group:

  • Identification of risk factors

  • Selection of relevant risk factors that can be reduced by using targeted measures, by patients (with support)

  • Information on risk-reducing measures and patients’ decision in favor of an option

Control group:

  • Standard care

All patients:

  • Cholesterol lowering measures (diet, pharmacotherapy)

 After 12 months:

  • Proportion of patients with ≥ 3 fewer risk factors: n. a.

  • Total cholesterol: 1.2;

    LDL cholesterol: 0.69;

    Triglycerides: 0.52

  • Systolic blood pressure: 1.02;

    Diastolic blood pressure: 0.63

  • Body mass index: 0.56

  • Proportion of patients who started taking statins on a regular basis during the study period: n. a.

  • Quality of life (SF-36): 0.3

  • HDL cholesterol: 0
(24) Diabetes mellitus
n = 30/23 vs. 31/29		 Intervention group:

  • Before discharge, chat (45 minutes) with nurse to obtain information, make decisions, and plan individual management of diabetes; concluding with formulating questions and intentions for the discharge discussion with the doctor

  • Information package for independent perusal after discharge, containing information on effective communication between doctor and patient, i.e. for example, formulating questions, place these, and defining them more precisely

Control group:

  • Patient education (3 days) aiming to achieve better metabolic control

 After 4 months:

  • Physical functioning (self assessment): 0.68

  • Significant HbA 1C reduction in intervention group but not control group: 0.14

  • Psychological functioning (self assessment): 0,17
(19) Diabetes mellitus
(n = 39/33 vs. 34/26)		 Intervention group:

  • Preparatory talk (20 minutes) with study assistant, aiming to ensure effective participation of patient in the discussion between patient and doctor immediately afterwards

  • Support when individually relevant medical questions are identified on the basis of a patient’s file

  • Explicit encouragement to negotiate medical decisions with the doctor

Control group:

  • Preparatory talk (20 minutes) with study assistant, reading through information brochure together

  • Discussion of potential problems in implementing the treatment plan, especially regarding adherence

 After 12 weeks:

  • Lowering of HbA 1C 0.96 *2

  • Intensity of therapeutic regimen more often unchanged or reduced compared to control group: 0.65

  • Quality of life (fewer physical limitations [RAND medical history index]): 1.01 *2

  • Illness-related days of absence from work: 1.49
(20) Ulceration
(n = 23/22 vs. 22/22)		 Intervention group:

  • Intervention as in (19)

Control group:

  • Preparatory talk (20 minutes) with study assistant, reading through information brochure together

 After 6–8 weeks:

  • Health status (6 questions):

    Proportion of patients with role limitations: 0.65;

    Extent of role limitations: 0.9;

    Proportion of patients with physical limitations: 0.57;

    Extent of physical limitations: 0.85

  • Ulceration-related pain (9 questions): 0.09
(25) Increased risk for breast cancer
(BRCA1/2 mutation)
n = 44/42 vs. 44/40		 Intervention group:

  • Exploration of how the patient evaluates individual treatment options in face-to-face interview; repeated over the telephone after a few weeks

  • Patient prioritizes one option

Control group:

  • Standard care

 After 9 months:

  • Health status in self-assessment (11-point scale): 0.4 *2

  • Depression (CES-D): 0.28*2

  • State anxiety (Spielberger STAI): 0.19*2
(17) Breast cancer
n = 36/13 vs. 35/10		 Intervention group:

  • Discussion with psychologist regarding treatment preferences, fears, worries, attitudes to alternative surgical options, etc

  • Inviting patient to make a final decision

Control group:

  • Clear recommendation by the surgeon for a particular surgical option

All patients:

  • Discussion of surgical options with surgeon

 After 15 months:

  • Depression scores (Leeds Anxiety and Depression Scale) for

    Generalized depression: 0,93

    Specific depression: 0,98
(21) Addictionn
= 111/79 vs. 105/87		 Intervention group:

  • SDM training for nursing staff (motivational interviewing/counseling)

  • In discussion with patient: identifying individual problem areas, setting out treatment objectives accordingly

  • Discussion format according to standardized SDM protocol

Control group:

  • Doctors proceed as usual: patient participates in the decision in an unstructured conversation

 After 3 months:

  • Illness severity (EuropASI) regarding drug consumption: 0.42;

    Psychological status: 0.38

  • Burden owing to addiction disorder (EuropASI) Regarding alcohol consumption: 0.25;

    Physical condition: 0.15;

    Legal problems: 0.06;

    Work and livelihood issues: 0.05

  • Proportion of abstinent patients: 0.04;

    Proportion of dependent patients: 0.1

  • Quality of life(EQ-5D): 0.02
(22) Schizophrenia
n = 51/51 vs. 33/33		 Intervention group:

  • Training in stress management, communication, and problem solving for patients in order to promote participation in treatment decisions

  • Cognitive behavioral therapy

Control group:

  • Group therapy and awareness training for patients, support during professional rehabilitation

All patients:

  • Combined treatment (antipsychotics, psychoeducation, living skill training) involving the fami ly

 After 24 months:

  • Decrease in social invalidity (GAF/WHO-DAS): 0.52 / 0.51

  • Severity of symptoms, severity of illness (GAF/BPRS): 0.15/0.15

  • Inpatient stays (number, duration): n. a.

  • Psychotic episodes (number, duration): n. a.

  • Homelessness: n. a.

Numbers in bold print: significant effect in favor of intervention group

*1Effect size as Cohen’s d

*2Cohen’s d calculated on the basis of the adjusted mean value

n/a., effect size not available; BPRS, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; EuropASI, European Addiction Severity Index; GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning; HDL, high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein; SDM, shared decision making; STAI, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; SF, short form; WHO-DAS, World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule