ArticleJournal of psychiatric research2016
Are individuals living with mental illness and their preferred alternative decision-makers attuned and aligned in their attitudes regarding treatment decisions?
Article in Journal of psychiatric research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Get Well Enough to Make the Right Decision for Themselves"-Experiences and Perspectives of Clinicians Working with People with Serious Mental Illness and Their Substitute Decision Makers.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Perceived protectiveness of research safeguards and influences on willingness to participate in research: A novel MTurk pilot study.Journal of psychiatric research · 2021Article
- Implementing a digital health model of care in Australian youth mental health services: protocol for impact evaluation.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Ethical Practices and Legal Challenges in Mental Health Research.Asian bioethics review · 2020Article
- Low level of knowledge regarding diagnosis and treatment among inpatients with schizophrenia in Shanghai.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2018Article
- Supported Decision Making in Serious Mental Illness.Psychiatry · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMental disorders account for considerable suffering and societal burden. Prospective alternative decision-makers may be engaged in helping make treatment decisions for those who live with serious mental disorders. Little is known about the ways in which alternative decision makers arrive at treatment recommendations and whether the perspectives of alternative decision makers and ill individuals are aligned.
methodsThe authors queried community-dwelling individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, anxiety, or mood disorders and their preferred alternative decision-makers on issues regarding treatment decisions and underlying ethically-salient perspectives using a written survey instrument. Complete data were obtained on 26 pairs (n = 52, total). Outcomes included perspectives on clinical decision-making and underlying values that may shape their life choices. Two-sided paired t-tests and graphical representations were used.
resultsWe found that preferred alternative decision-makers overall accurately predicted the views of ill individuals with respect to the role of the individual and of family in treatment decision making. Preferred alternative decision-makers slightly overestimated autonomy-related perspectives. The personal views of ill individuals and preferred alternative decision-makers were aligned with respect to different physical and mental disorders, except in relation to alcohol and substance use where alternative decision-makers placed greater emphasis on autonomy. Alignment was also discovered on underlying life values, except the role of spirituality which was greater among alternative decision-makers.
conclusionPreferred alternative decision-makers are an ethical safeguard to ensure the wellbeing and rights of seriously ill individuals. In this pilot study, preferred alternative decision makers were aligned with their ill family members concerning treatment-related decisions and underlying life values. Future research should continue to explore and clarify the views of ill individuals and alternative decision makers to determine the quality of this safeguard used in clinical settings.
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.