Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24330307›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2013

Making decisions about treatment for young people diagnosed with depressive disorders: a qualitative study of clinicians' experiences.

Magenta B Simmons, Sarah E Hetrick, Anthony F Jorm

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Right choice, right time: Evaluation of an online decision aid for youth depression.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Qualitative and mixed methods in mental health services and implementation research.Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53 · 2014
    Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Magenta B Simmonsheadspace Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Locked Bag 10, Parkville 3052, Victoria, Australia. msimmons@unimelb.edu.au.
Sarah E Hetrick
Anthony F Jorm
Orygen Youth Health · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe imperative to provide effective treatment for young people diagnosed with depressive disorders is complicated by several factors including the unclear effectiveness of treatment options. Within this context, little is known about how treatment decisions are made for this population.

methodsIn order to explore the experiences and beliefs of clinicians about treatment decision making for this population, semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 22 psychiatrists, general practitioners and allied health professionals from health care settings including specialist mental health services and primary health care. Interviews were audio taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsClinicians largely reported and endorsed a collaborative model of treatment decision making for youth depression, although several exceptions to this approach were also described (e.g., when risk issues were present), highlighting a need to adapt the decision-making style to the characteristics and needs of the client. A differentiation was made between the decision-making processes (e.g., sharing of information) and who makes the decision. Caregiver involvement was seen as optional, especially in situations where no caregivers were involved, but ideal and useful if the caregivers were supportive. Gaps between the type and amount of information clinicians wanted to give their clients and what they actually gave them were reported (e.g., having fact sheets on hand). A broad range of barriers to involving clients and caregivers in decision-making processes were described relating to four levels (client and caregiver, clinician, service and broader levels) and suggestions were given to help overcome these barriers, including up-to-date, accessible and relevant information.

conclusionsThe current data support a collaborative model of treatment decision making for youth depression which: (1) focuses on the decision-making processes rather than who actually makes the decision; (2) is flexible to the individual needs and characteristics of the client; and (3) where caregiver involvement is optional. Shared decision making interventions and the use of decision aids should be considered for this area.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingPhysician-Patient RelationsPractice Patterns, Physicians'AdolescentCaregiversChildDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMaleMental Health ServicesPatient ParticipationPrimary Health CareQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID24330307
PMCPMC4029801
OpenAlexW2024092106

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.