ArticlePsychiatric research and clinical practice2025
Evaluating the Impact of a Lifestyle-Focused Approach on Cardiovascular Risk in Inpatients With Mental Illness: Analyzing Effectiveness and Fidelity in a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial (MULTI+ Study V).
Article in Psychiatric research and clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: People with mental illness have worse health outcomes and up to 20 years shorter life expectancy than the general population. Lifestyle interventions are promising to improve their physical and mental health but implementing these in real-world practice remains challenging. This study evaluated the impact of a multidisciplinary lifestyle-focused approach (MULTI+) on cardiovascular risk among inpatients with mental illness. Methods: In an open-cohort stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial, we compared changes in estimated 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event (QRISK3) between MULTI+ and care as usual (CAU) across inpatient wards at GGz Centraal (the Netherlands). Using linear mixed models, we assessed intervention effectiveness and explored whether implementation fidelity influenced outcomes. Results: We included 3603 individuals, with an unadjusted mean QRISK3 score of 15.1% in CAU and 15.4% in MULTI+. After adjusting for confounders, there was a small but statistically significant increase in the logit-transformed QRISK3 score in MULTI+ (OR = 1.1; 95% CI: [1.05-1.17], Conclusions: In this large-scale study, we observed no improvements-and even slight deterioration-in cardiovascular risk among people receiving MULTI+ compared to CAU. Challenges in implementation likely contributed to these outcomes. More intensive, tailored, and sustained implementation efforts, alongside broader systemic and societal support, may be required to reduce cardiovascular risk in this population. Relevance to clinical practice: The large-scale real-world setting provides valuable insights into MULTI+'s effectiveness, highlighting challenges in improving cardiovascular risk and the need for sustained efforts for successful integration.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.