ArticleBMJ open2016
Competing priorities in treatment decision-making: a US national survey of individuals with depression and clinicians who treat depression.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Shifting Perspectives on the Challenges of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Care.Community mental health journal · 2024Pooled it
- Development of a Cocreated Decision Aid for Patients With Depression-Combining Data-Driven Prediction With Patients' and Clinicians' Needs and Perspectives: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- Urinary Incontinence in Active Female Young Adults: Healthcare Preferences, Priorities and Experiences.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Shared decision making and associated factors among patients with psychotic disorders: a cross-sectional study.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- Article
- "It's a mess sometimes": patient perspectives on provider responses to healthcare costs, and how informatics interventions can help support cost-sensitive care decisions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Health informatics interventions to minimize out-of-pocket medication costs for patients: what providers want.JAMIA open · 2022Article
- Psychometric evaluation of a decision quality instrument for medication decisions for treatment of depression symptoms.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Assessing Shared Decision-Making in Cystic Fibrosis Care Using collaboRATE: A Cross-Sectional Study of 159 Programs.Journal of patient experience · 2021Article
- Findings From World Mental Health Surveys of the Perceived Helpfulness of Treatment for Patients With Major Depressive Disorder.JAMA psychiatry · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- A Qualitative Exploration of Clinician Views and Experiences of Treatment Decision-Making in Bipolar II Disorder.Community mental health journal · 2017Article
- 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 · 2017Article
- Assessment of shared decision-making in community mental health care: Validation of the CollaboRATE.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify information priorities for consumers and clinicians making depression treatment decisions and assess shared decision-making (SDM) in routine depression care.
design20 questions related to common features of depression treatments were provided. Participants were initially asked to select which features were important, and in a second stage they were asked to rank their top 5 'important features' in order of importance. Clinicians were asked to provide rankings according to both consumer and clinician perspectives. Consumers completed CollaboRATE, a measure of SDM. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified consumer characteristics associated with CollaboRATE scores.
settingOnline cross-sectional surveys fielded in September to December 2014.
participantsWe administered surveys to convenience samples of US adults with depression and clinicians who treat depression. Consumer sampling was targeted to reflect age, gender and educational attainment of adults with depression in the USA. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Information priority rankings; CollaboRATE, a 3-item consumer-reported measure of SDM.
results972 consumers and 244 clinicians completed the surveys. The highest ranked question for both consumers and clinicians was 'Will the treatment work?' Clinicians were aware of consumers' priorities, yet did not always prioritise that information themselves, particularly insurance coverage and cost of treatment. Only 18% of consumers reported high levels of SDM. Working with a psychiatrist (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.26) and female gender (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.25 to 3.34) were associated with top CollaboRATE scores.
conclusionsWhile clinicians know what information is important to consumers making depression treatment decisions, they do not always address these concerns. This mismatch, coupled with low SDM, adversely affects the quality of depression care. Development of a decision support intervention based on our findings can improve levels of SDM and provide clinicians and consumers with a tool to address the existing misalignment in information priorities.
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.