Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28498575›Full record

ArticleWorld psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA)2017

Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care.

Mike Slade

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04175366 (Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Inpatient Care to Enhance Patient Participation), which is not on this map. Cited by 170 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
170citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04175366 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Inpatient Care to Enhance Patient Participation

TypeinterventionalSponsorUmeå UniversityRan2019 to 2022Enrolled160ConditionsParticipation, Patient, Psychiatric Hospitalization, PsychosisArmsShared Decision Making
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

170 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Supported Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Outcomes for People With Mental Ill Health.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Supported decision-making interventions in mental healthcare: A systematic review of current evidence and implementation barriers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Experiential and Medical Knowledge of Shared Decision-Making: Exploring Clinician and Service User Perspectives in NHS Community Mental Health Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

110 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Mike SladeInstitute of Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non-maleficence. It is argued that SDM is "polyvalent", a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high-quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery-supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes - social marketing and the hospitality industry - are identified.

Indexed as

ethicsimplementationmental health careroutine outcome monitoringShared decision makingsocial marketing

Identifiers

PMID28498575
PMCPMC5428178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.