SynthesisBMJ open2015
What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2015. 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.
- Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- Quality appraisal for systematic literature reviews of health state utility values: a descriptive analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Antipsychotic Medication Preferences: A Large-Scale Survey.Pharmacopsychiatry · 2026Article
- Well-being as a primary endpoint in clinical trials: a call for consensus.Npj mental health research · 2026Review
- Assessing patient satisfaction with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis care and associated factors in Iran.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Quality Appraisal in Systematic Literature Reviews of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values: Conceptual Considerations.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
- Article
- Important adverse events to be evaluated in antidepressant trials and meta-analyses in depression: a large international preference study including patients and healthcare professionals.Evidence-based mental health · 2022Article
- Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review.The patient · 2022Article
- Patient-based benefit-risk assessment of medicines: development, refinement, and validation of a content search strategy to retrieve relevant studies.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Review
- Can the use of long-acting injectable antipsychotic preparations be increased in routine clinical practice and the benefits realised?Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2022Article
- The Impact of Technology-Enabled Care Coordination in a Complex Mental Health System: A Local System Dynamics Model.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- EMA and FDA psychiatric drug trial guidelines: assessment of guideline development and trial design recommendations.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2021Article
- Understanding Treatment Preferences of Australian Patients Living with Treatment-Resistant Depression.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Treatment Goals in Schizophrenia: A Real-World Survey of Patients, Psychiatrists, and Caregivers in the United States, with an Analysis of Current Treatment (Long-Acting Injectable vs Oral Antipsychotics) and Goal Selection.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2021Article
- Nobody ever questions-Polypharmacy in care homes: A mixed methods evaluation of a multidisciplinary medicines optimisation initiative.PloS one · 2021Article
- Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder?BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2020Review
- A meta-review of literature reviews assessing the capacity of patients with severe mental disorders to make decisions about their healthcare.BMC psychiatry · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate patients' preferences for outcomes associated with psychoactive medications. SETTING/
designSystematic review of stated preference studies. No settings restrictions were applied. PARTICIPANTS/ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies containing quantitative data regarding the relative value adults with mental disorders place on treatment outcomes. Studies with high risk of bias were excluded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We restricted the scope of our review to preferences for outcomes, including the consequences from, attributes of, and health states associated with particular medications or medication classes, and process outcomes.
resultsAfter reviewing 11 215 citations, 16 studies were included in the systematic review. These studies reported the stated preferences from patients with schizophrenia (n=9), depression (n=4), bipolar disorder (n=2) and attention deficit hyperactive disorder (n=1). The median sample size was 81. Side effects and symptom outcomes outnumbered functioning and process outcomes. Severe disease and hospitalisation were reported to be least desirable. Patients with schizophrenia tended to value disease states as higher and side effects as lower, compared to other stakeholder groups. In depression, the ability to cope with activities was found to be more important than a depressed mood, per se. Patient preferences could not consistently be predicted from demographic or disease variables. Only a limited number of potentially important outcomes had been investigated. Benefits to patients were not part of the purpose in 9 of the 16 studies, and in 10 studies patients were not involved when the outcomes to present were selected.
conclusionsInsufficient evidence exists on the relative value patients with mental disorders place on medication-associated outcomes. To increase patient-centredness in decisions involving psychoactive drugs, further research-with outcomes elicited from patients, and for a larger number of conditions-should be undertaken. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42013005685.
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.