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

eTable 2a. Studies in which interventions did not improve 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*1 (measurement instruments)*2
(27) Diverse (members of AOK and LKK Baden–Württemberg insurance funds, receiving outpatient treatment)
n = 496/309 vs. 911/408		 Intervention group:

  • Patient selects trusted doctor as primary contact and cross-sectoral coordinator for his/her care.

  • Patient receives written version of their information and participation rights (so-called charter of patients’ rights).

  • Election of a patient advisory board as institutional representation of patients’ interests

  • Commitment of doctors and psychotherapists in private practice to negotiate individual health objectives with patients

  • Three hours of training for doctors in private practice as regards greater involvement of patients in treatment decisions, and its implementation

  • Two further 3-hour training sessions for doctors on doctor–patient communications in the sense of salutogenesis

Control group:

  • Parallel control group from comparable region

  • Physical quality of life (SF-12): 0.05 (0.99)

  • Psychological quality of life (SF-12): 0.06 (0.08)
(28) Cardiovascular risk
n= 550/460 vs. 582/466		 Intervention group:

  • Two 2-hour training sessions for doctors on risk assessment, ethical aspects of SDM, but especially on practical aspects of communication and material for the doctor–patient conversation

  • Doctor–patient conversation using the “arriba“ decision aid—which adopts crucial elements from SDM—aiming to agree together a strategy for lowering the cardiovascular risk.

Control group:

  • In order to sustain motivation, doctors were offered to attend seminars on topics not related to SDM (placebo CME).

  • Lowering of estimated cardiovascular risk (Framingham score): 0.07 (0.31)
(36) Fibromyalgia syndrome
n= 44/34 vs 41/33		 Intervention group:

  • Twelve 90-minute training units for doctors on patient-centered communication, interaction, and implementation of SDM

Control group:

  • Treatment by doctors from a specialist rheumatology hospital

  • Intensity of pain (VAS): 0,21 (0.45)

  • Depression (CES-D): 0,27 (0.26)

  • General health status (SF-36): 0.08 (0.89)
(37) Prostate cancer
n= 30/n. a. vs 30/n. a.		 Intervention group:

  • Before the consultation the patient is asked for specific information he/she requires in order to feel competent enough to participate in a decision about treatment.

  • Patient receives this information; a list with relevant questions for the conversation/discussion between doctor and patient is set out jointly

  • Patients are encouraged to participate actively in the decision about subsequent treatment methods.

Control group:

  • Patients receive an information brochure and are motivated to read this from cover to cover after their consultation with the doctor.

  • Trait anxiety (Spielberger STAI): n. a. (n. a.)

  • Depressiveness/depression (CES-D): n. a. (n. a.)

*1The p value of the group comparison is shown in parentheses.

*2Effect size as Cohen’s d

n. a., relevant data not available; AOK, a large German general statutory health insurance fund; CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; CME, continuing medical education; LKK, statutory health insurance for the agricultural sector; SDM, shared decision making; SF, short form; STAI, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; VAS, visual analog scale