Skip to main content

Table 3 Topics mentioned in the brief open interview about TREAT (clinicians)

From: The development and evaluation of a computerized decision aid for the treatment of psychotic disorders

Positive feedback Negative feedback
TREAT improved the efficiency of the treatment session. 5 The treatment recommendations were sometimes repetitive, when patients had already received certain treatment options in the past. 1,3
TREAT was a good reminder to talk about certain topics, which otherwise might be forgotten. 3,5 The specific diagnosis of the patient was not mentioned in TREAT. 3
The visual feedback was experienced as pleasant. 3 The treatment recommendations did not add much, new information. It was however convenient to explicitly go through the different options. 4
The visualizations were especially useful for the patient and it led to more shared-decision making. 1 The cut-off scores for the somatic parameters in TREAT were different than the cut-off scores the general practitioner uses. This is confusing. 2
Because of TREAT the discussion of the ROM results became a more explicit moment to make decisions. 1 The print version of TREAT was too long. The graphs take up much space. 2
When the treatment guidelines change, TREAT needs to be updated. The maintenance of TREAT is important. 2 The information the ROM nurse added to the ROM results did not appear in TREAT. Because of this, important information was sometimes missing. 2
ROM-Phamous was confusing and TREAT has made this better and clearer. 6 It is a risk that clinicians will only follow TREAT and forget about other potential problems. 5
Certain treatment options in the recommendations were new and I would not have thought of these options without TREAT. An example was ‘peer support groups’. 6 It would be helpful if TREAT could also lead to a template for a treatment plan. 5
The treatment session was more structured and I had the feeling we had discussed all the important issues, because of TREAT. 5 It would be nice to be able to compare ROM results of previous years with current results. 1
  1. Clinician identifier: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6