Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28597029›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2017

[Shared decision-making in acute psychiatric medicine : Contraindication or a challenge?]

S Heres, J Hamann

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

S HeresKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Technische Universität München am Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaningerstraße 22, 81675, München, Deutschland. stephan.heres@tum.de.
J HamannKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Technische Universität München am Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaningerstraße 22, 81675, München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of shared decision-making (SDM) has existed since the 1990s in multiple fields of somatic medicine but has only been poorly applied in psychiatric clinical routine despite broad acceptance and promising outcomes in clinical studies on its positive effects. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe concept itself and its practicability in mental health are carefully assessed and strategies for its future implementation in psychiatric medicine are presented in this article. Ongoing clinical studies probing some of those strategies are further outlined. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: On top of the ubiquitous shortage of time in clinical routine, psychiatrists report their concern about patients' limited abilities in sharing decisions and their own fear of potentially harmful decisions resulting from a shared process. Misinterpretation of shared decision-making restricting the health care professional to rather an informed choice scenario and their own adhesion to the traditional paternalistic decision-making approach further add to SDM's underutilization. Those hurdles could be overcome by communication skill workshops for all mental health care professionals, including nursing personnels, psychologists, social workers and physicians, as well as the use of decision aids and training courses for patients to motivate and empower them in sharing decisions with the medical staff. By this, the patient-centered treatment approach demanded by guidelines, carers and users could be further facilitated in psychiatric clinical routine.

Indexed as

Contraindications, ProcedureDecision MakingAcute DiseaseCommunicationGermanyGuideline AdherenceHealth Plan ImplementationHumansMental DisordersPaternalismPatient CompliancePatient Education as TopicPersonal AutonomyPhysician-Patient RelationsAdherenceHealth plan implementationPersonal autonomyPhysician–patient relationsSchizophrenia

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.