ArticleBMC psychiatry2014
Consultant psychiatrists' experiences of and attitudes towards shared decision making in antipsychotic prescribing, a qualitative study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A meta-ethnography of shared decision-making in mental health care from the perspective of staff and service users.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Shifting Perspectives on the Challenges of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Care.Community mental health journal · 2024Pooled it
- Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure-process-outcome model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy of Pharmaceutical Care in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension: A Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of clinical practice · 2022Trial
- Empowering Collaboration With Patients: Healthcare Staff's Perspectives on Conditions for Shared Decision-Making in Swedish Psychiatric Care.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Lived experiences of shared decision-making in young adults prescribed antipsychotics: a qualitative interview study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Bridging the Gap Between Efficacy and Practice: A Systematic Review of Shared Decision-Making in Severe Mental Illness.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Exploring early intervention in psychosis (EIP) perspectives towards pharmacogenomics (PGx) implementation to support antipsychotic prescribing: a multi-method qualitative exploration.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Review
- From Idealist to Realist-Designing and Implementing Shared Decision-Making Interventions in the Choice of Antipsychotic Prescription in People Living with Psychosis (SHAPE): A Realist Review.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2025Review
- The role of pharmacists in supporting service users to optimise antipsychotic medication.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Shared Decision Making in Psychiatry: Dissolving the Responsibility Problem.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2023Article
- Vulnerability in practice: Peeling back the layers, avoiding triggers, and preventing cascading effects.Bioethics · 2022Article
- Experiences of shared decision making among patients with psychotic disorders in Norway: a qualitative study.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- NICE shared decision making guidelines and mental health: challenges for research, practice and implementation.BJPsych open · 2021Article
- Shared decision making for psychiatric medication management: a summary of its uptake, barriers and facilitators.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- Barriers and Enablers to Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Medication Management: A Qualitative Investigation of Clinician and Service Users' Views.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Mental health professionals' experiences with shared decision-making for patients with psychotic disorders: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness: A concept analysis.Japan journal of nursing science : JJNS · 2020Review
- Clinicians' views of treatment types for first episode psychosis delivered in a randomised controlled trial (MAPS).EClinicalMedicine · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShared decision making represents a clinical consultation model where both clinician and service user are conceptualised as experts; information is shared bilaterally and joint treatment decisions are reached. Little previous research has been conducted to assess experience of this model in psychiatric practice. The current project therefore sought to explore the attitudes and experiences of consultant psychiatrists relating to shared decision making in the prescribing of antipsychotic medications.
methodsA qualitative research design allowed the experiences and beliefs of participants in relation to shared decision making to be elicited. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from a range of clinical backgrounds and with varying length of clinical experience. A semi-structured interview schedule was utilised and was adapted in subsequent interviews to reflect emergent themes.Data analysis was completed in parallel with interviews in order to guide interview topics and to inform recruitment. A directed analysis method was utilised for interview analysis with themes identified being fitted to a framework identified from the research literature as applicable to the practice of shared decision making. Examples of themes contradictory to, or not adequately explained by, the framework were sought.
resultsA total of 26 consultant psychiatrists were interviewed. Participants expressed support for the shared decision making model, but also acknowledged that it was necessary to be flexible as the clinical situation dictated. A number of potential barriers to the process were perceived however: The commonest barrier was the clinician's beliefs regarding the service users' insight into their mental disorder, presented in some cases as an absolute barrier to shared decision making. In addition factors external to the clinician - service user relationship were identified as impacting on the decision making process, including; environmental factors, financial constraints as well as societal perceptions of mental disorder in general and antipsychotic medication in particular.
conclusionsThis project has allowed identification of potential barriers to shared decision making in psychiatric practice. Further work is necessary to observe the decision making process in clinical practice and also to identify means in which the identified barriers, in particular 'lack of insight', may be more effectively managed.
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.