Feasibility study on a digital version of Good Psychiatric Management delivered in routine psychiatric care.

Dan Bengtsson, Hanna Sahlin, Viktor Kaldo, Fredrik Falkenström

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Internet interventions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Dan BengtssonDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden.

Hanna SahlinCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Region Stockholm, Sweden.

Viktor KaldoDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden.

Fredrik FalkenströmDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Scalable, low-threshold interventions for personality disorders and personality difficulties (ICD-11) remain limited. We developed GPM-I, a guided digital self-help adaptation of Good Psychiatric Management, to deliver structured psychoeducation and support early change efforts. Methods: We conducted a naturalistic feasibility study in routine psychiatric care in Stockholm, Sweden. Feasibility outcomes included engagement and standard program completion (Modules 1-2) and optional advanced module uptake (Modules 3-6). Acceptability was assessed with the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) and negative effects with the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ). Weekly distress (CORE-10) was analyzed using linear mixed-effects models. Results: Of 131 patients offered access, 78 (59.5%) initiated the program by completing Module 1 (engagement threshold). Participants were 71.8% women; mean age was 35.2 years. Participants were categorized as having personality disorder ( Conclusion: GPM-I showed moderate engagement and moderate acceptability among respondents, alongside generally mild-to-moderate negative effects. Findings support continued refinement of the procedures and can inform the design of a controlled trial.

Indexed as

AcceptabilityFeasibilityGood Psychiatric ManagementGuided self-helpICD-11, digital interventionNegative effectsPersonality difficultiesPersonality disordersPsychiatric outpatient care

Identifiers

PMID41953232

DOI10.1016/j.invent.2026.100937

PMCPMC13053851

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.