ArticleBMC psychiatry2010
Clinical decision making and outcome in routine care for people with severe mental illness (CEDAR): study protocol.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preferences for Decision-Making Style and Knowledge of and Attitudes To Recovery in Mental Health Professionals Working in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings in Routine Mental Health Practice: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study in the Danish Mental Health Services.Administration and policy in mental health · 2026Article
- Editorial: Emerging perspectives in psychiatry: innovations and insights from early career researchers.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Clinical characterization and management of persons with comorbid epilepsy and depression: an expert opinion paper.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Analysis of factors that promote the participation of patients with chronic diseases in shared decision making on medication: a cross-sectional survey in Hubei Province, China.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Validation of the Chinese version stage of recovery instrument-30 (STORI-30) for adults with severe mental illness.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- Clinical decision-making style preferences of European psychiatrists: Results from the Ambassadors survey in 38 countries.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2022Review
- Shared and Supported Decision Making in Medication in a Mental Health Setting: How Far Have We Come?Community mental health journal · 2021Article
- When does shared decision making is adopted in psychiatric clinical practice? Results from a European multicentric study.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2020Observational
- Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2017Article
- Recovery and decision-making involvement in people with severe mental illness from six countries: a prospective observational study.BMC psychiatry · 2017Observational
- Predicting the preferences for involvement in medical decision making among patients with mental disorders.PloS one · 2017Article
- Clinical decision making and outcome in the routine care of people with severe mental illness across Europe (CEDAR).Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2016Article
- Risk assessment by client and case manager for shared decision making in outpatient forensic psychiatry.BMC psychiatry · 2015Article
- Courses of helping alliance in the treatment of people with severe mental illness in Europe: a latent class analytic approach.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2015Article
- Core domains of shared decision-making during psychiatric visits: scientific and preference-based discussions.Administration and policy in mental health · 2015Article
- Desire for information of people with severe mental illness.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2014Article
- The development and evaluation of a five-language multi-perspective standardised measure: clinical decision-making involvement and satisfaction (CDIS).BMC health services research · 2014Article
- Predictors of shared decision making and level of agreement between consumers and providers in psychiatric care.Community mental health journal · 2014Article
- Service user- and carer-reported measures of involvement in mental health care planning: methodological quality and acceptability to users.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2014Review
- Development and psychometric properties of a five-language multiperspective instrument to assess clinical decision making style in the treatment of people with severe mental illness (CDMS).BMC psychiatry · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA considerable amount of research has been conducted on clinical decision making (CDM) in short-term physical conditions. However, there is a lack of knowledge on CDM and its outcome in long-term illnesses, especially in care for people with severe mental illness. METHODS/
designThe study entitled "Clinical decision making and outcome in routine care for people with severe mental illness" (CEDAR) is carried out in six European countries (Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland and UK). First, CEDAR establishes a methodology to assess CDM in people with severe mental illness. Specific instruments are developed (and psychometric properties established) to measure CDM style, key elements of CDM in routine care, as well as CDM involvement and satisfaction from patient and therapist perspectives. Second, these instruments are being put to use in a multi-national prospective observational study (bimonthly assessments during a one-year observation period; N = 560). This study investigates the immediate, short- and long-term effect of CDM on crucial dimensions of clinical outcome (symptom level, quality of life, needs) by taking into account significant variables moderating the relationship between CDM and outcome. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will make possible to delineate quality indicators of CDM, as well as to specify prime areas for further improvement. Ingredients of best practice in CDM in the routine care for people with severe mental illness will be extracted and recommendations formulated. With its explicit focus on the patient role in CDM, CEDAR will also contribute to strengthening the service user perspective. This project will substantially add to improving the practice of CDM in mental health care across Europe. TRIAL REGISTER: ISRCTN75841675.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.