Open Access

Background Clinical practice guidelines are crucial for enhancing healthcare quality and patient outcomes. Yet, their implementation remains inconsistent across various professions and disciplines. Previous findings on the implementation of the German guideline for schizophrenia (2019) revealed low adherence rates among healthcare professionals. Barriers to guideline adherence are multifaceted, influenced by individual, contextual, and guideline-related factors. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a digital guideline version compared to print/PDF formats in enhancing guideline adherence. Methods A multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Bavaria, Germany, involving psychologists and physicians. Participants were divided into two groups: implementation of the guideline using a digital online version via the MAGICapp platform and the other using the traditional print/PDF version. The study included a baseline assessment and a post-intervention assessment following a 6-month intervention phase. The primary outcome was guideline knowledge, which was assessed using a guideline knowledge questionnaire. Results The study included 217 participants at baseline and 120 at post-intervention. Both groups showed significant improvements in guideline knowledge; however, no notable difference was found between both study groups regarding guideline knowledge at either time points. At baseline, 43.6% in the control group (CG) and 52.5% of the interventional group (IG) met the criterion. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the two groups at either time point (T0: Chi2(1) = 1.65, p = 0.199, T1: Chi2(1) = 0.34, p = 0.561). At post-intervention, both groups improved, with 58.2% in the CG and 63.5% in the IG meeting this criterion. Conclusions While the study did not include a control group without any implementation strategy, the overall improvement in guideline knowledge following an implementation strategy, independent of the format, was confirmed. The digital guideline version, while not superior in enhancing knowledge, showed potential benefits in shared decision-making skills. However, familiarity with traditional formats and various barriers to digital application may have influenced these results. The study highlights the importance of tailored implementation strategies, especially for younger healthcare providers.

Background: Promoting social inclusion is crucial for people living with severe mental illness (SMI), who often experience high levels of social exclusion. However, research that uses a psychometric social inclusion measure to identify factors that determine varying levels of social inclusion in individuals with SMI is scarce. Aims: This study aimed to examine to what extent people with SMI feel socially included and to identify factors associated with perceived social inclusion among people with SMI. Method: A cross-sectional multicenter investigation of psychiatric inpatients and day hospital patients with SMI aged 18 to 65 years (n = 358) was conducted. Perceived social inclusion, sociodemographic, and clinical characteristics were assessed using the Measure of Participation and Social Inclusion for Use in People with a Chronic Mental Disorder (F-INK). Hierarchical multiple linear regression was performed to analyse the association between social inclusion and potential predictors. Results: The participants' overall level of social inclusion was moderate (F-INK social inclusion total score M = 1.9, SD = 0.6). Age, relationship status, diagnostic group, employment status, and living situation emerged as predictors of social inclusion. Greater subjective social inclusion was predicted by older age (p = .027), being in a committed intimate relationship (p = .037), diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder (compared to diagnosis of depression, p = .020), being competitively employed or in education (compared to being in sheltered employment, p = .022; compared to being unemployed or receiving a disability pension, p = .007), and living with other people (p = .042). Conclusions: The results confirm deficiencies in social inclusion of people with SMI. Individuals with SMI who are younger, single, have a diagnosis of depression, are in sheltered employment, are unemployed or receiving a disability pension, and are living alone seem to be particularly at risk of experiencing low social inclusion. These findings highlight the importance of psychosocial interventions in rehabilitative mental healthcare.