Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28732477›Full record

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.

Catherine Henshall, Lisa Marzano, Katharine Smith, Mary-Jane Attenburrow, Stephen Puntis, Jakov Zlodre, Kathleen Kelly, Matthew R Broome, Susan Shaw, Alvaro Barrera and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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) · 2022
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Predicting treatment outcome in depression: an introduction into current concepts and challenges.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Providing the most appropriate care to ourEvidence-based mental health · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine HenshallOxINMAHR, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
Lisa MarzanoDepartment of Psychology, Middlesex University, London, UK.
Katharine SmithOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Mary-Jane AttenburrowOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Stephen PuntisDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, OX3 7JX, UK.
Jakov ZlodreOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Kathleen KellyOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Matthew R BroomeOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Susan ShawOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Alvaro BarreraOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Andrew MolodynskiOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Alastair ReidOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
John R GeddesOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Andrea CiprianiOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK. andrea.cipriani@psych.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5179-8321
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBMiddlesex University · GBOxford Brookes University · GBWarneford Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Disease ManagementCaregiversConsultantsDecision MakingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalFocus GroupsHumansInternetNeeds AssessmentPilot ProjectsPsychiatryDecision makingEvidence based decision toolFocus groupTreatment algorithm

Identifiers

PMID28732477
PMCPMC5521138
OpenAlexW2724876318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.