ArticleAdministration and policy in mental health2015
Core domains of shared decision-making during psychiatric visits: scientific and preference-based discussions.
Article in Administration and policy in mental health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Putting measurement-based care into action: a multi-method study of the benefits of integrating routine client feedback in coordinated specialty care programs for early psychosis.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- Patient preferences and shared decision making for the traditional Chinese medicine treatment of lung cancer: A discrete choice experiment study.Integrative medicine research · 2023Article
- Physician Preferences and Shared-Decision Making for the Traditional Chinese Medicine Treatment of Lung Cancer: A Discrete-Choice Experiment Study in China.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Implementation of a shared decision-making training program for clinicians based on the major depressive disorder guidelines in Japan: A multi-center cluster randomized trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness: A concept analysis.Japan journal of nursing science : JJNS · 2020Review
- Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2017Article
- Supporting shared decision making beyond consumer-prescriber interactions: Initial development of the CommonGround fidelity scale.American journal of psychiatric rehabilitation · 2016Article
- Why are you here again? Concordance between consumers and providers about the primary concern in recurring psychiatric visits.Psychiatry research · 2014Article
- Consultant psychiatrists' experiences of and attitudes towards shared decision making in antipsychotic prescribing, a qualitative study.BMC psychiatry · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Shared decision-making (SDM) is imperative to person-centered care, yet little is known about what aspects of SDM are targeted during psychiatric visits. This secondary data analysis (191 psychiatric visits with 11 providers, coded with a validated SDM coding system) revealed two factors (scientific and preference-based discussions) underlying SDM communication. Preference-based discussion occurred less. Both provider and consumer initiation of SDM elements and decision complexity were associated with greater discussions in both factors, but were more strongly associated with scientific discussion. Longer visit length correlated with only scientific discussion. Providers' understanding of core domains could facilitate engaging consumers in SDM.
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.