ArticleBMC psychiatry2017
A web-based clinical decision tool to support treatment decision-making in psychiatry: a pilot focus group study with clinicians, patients and carers.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiple Adverse Outcomes Associated with Risperidone in People with Dementia: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.CNS drugs · 2026Pooled it
- Barriers to and Facilitators of User Engagement With Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Point-of-care tools to support optometric care provision to people with age-related macular degeneration: A randomised, placebo-controlled trial.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022Trial
- Developing a Novel Digital Tool for Personalised Antipsychotic Prescribing in People Living With Dementia: The Views of Australian Clinicians.Dementia (London, England) · 2026Article
- Practical applications of methods to incorporate patient preferences into medical decision models: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Assessing patient preferences for medical decision making - a comparison of different methods.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Clinician perspectives and recommendations regarding design of clinical prediction models for deteriorating patients in acute care.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Transdiagnostic clustering and network analysis for questionnaire-based symptom profiling and drug recommendation in the UK Biobank and a Korean cohort.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- How do patients and families evaluate attitude of psychiatrists in Japan?: quantitative content analysis of open-ended items of patient responses from a large-scale questionnaire survey.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- Predicting treatment outcome in depression: an introduction into current concepts and challenges.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2023Review
- Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Digital intervention for public health: searching for implementing characteristics, concepts and recommendations: scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Real-World Implementation of Precision Psychiatry: A Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitators.Brain sciences · 2022Review
- Shared and Supported Decision Making in Medication in a Mental Health Setting: How Far Have We Come?Community mental health journal · 2021Article
- Identifying Ethical Considerations for Machine Learning Healthcare Applications.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2020Article
- Implementing a digital clinical decision support tool for side effects of antipsychotics: a focus group study.Evidence-based mental health · 2019Article
- Providing the most appropriate care to ourEvidence-based mental health · 2019Article
- Leveraging the utility of pharmacogenomics in psychiatry through clinical decision support: a focus group study.Annals of general psychiatry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment decision tools have been developed in many fields of medicine, including psychiatry, however benefits for patients have not been sustained once the support is withdrawn. We have developed a web-based computerised clinical decision support tool (CDST), which can provide patients and clinicians with continuous, up-to-date, personalised information about the efficacy and tolerability of competing interventions. To test the feasibility and acceptability of the CDST we conducted a focus group study, aimed to explore the views of clinicians, patients and carers.
methodsThe CDST was developed in Oxford. To tailor treatments at an individual level, the CDST combines the best available evidence from the scientific literature with patient preferences and values, and with patient medical profile to generate personalised clinical recommendations. We conducted three focus groups comprising of three different participant types: consultant psychiatrists, participants with a mental health diagnosis and/or experience of caring for someone with a mental health diagnosis, and primary care practitioners and nurses. Each 1-h focus group started with a short visual demonstration of the CDST. To standardise the discussion during the focus groups, we used the same topic guide that covered themes relating to the acceptability and usability of the CDST. Focus groups were recorded and any identifying participant details were anonymised. Data were analysed thematically and managed using the Framework method and the constant comparative method.
resultsThe focus groups took place in Oxford between October 2016 and January 2017. Overall 31 participants attended (12 consultants, 11 primary care practitioners and 8 patients or carers). The main themes that emerged related to CDST applications in clinical practice, communication, conflicting priorities, record keeping and data management. CDST was considered a useful clinical decision support, with recognised value in promoting clinician-patient collaboration and contributing to the development of personalised medicine. One major benefit of the CDST was perceived to be the open discussion about the possible side-effects of medications. Participants from all the three groups, however, universally commented that the terminology and language presented on the CDST were too medicalised, potentially leading to ethical issues around consent to treatment.
conclusionsThe CDST can improve communication pathways between patients, carers and clinicians, identifying care priorities and providing an up-to-date platform for implementing evidence-based practice, with regard to prescribing practices.
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.