ArticleInternational journal of bipolar disorders2018
Shared decision making in pharmacotherapy decisions, perceived by patients with bipolar disorder.
Article in International journal of bipolar disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Shifting Perspectives on the Challenges of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Care.Community mental health journal · 2024Pooled it
- Shared decision-making in the treatment of bipolar disorder: findings from a nationwide naturalistic cohort study in everyday clinical practice.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2025Observational
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of cancer patients regarding radiotherapy and radiation protection.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- A Comparison between Perceptions of Psychiatric Outpatients and Psychiatrists Regarding Benzodiazepine Use and Decision Making for Its Discontinuation: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Prioritizing Treatment Goals of People Diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder in the US: Best-Worst Scaling Results.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Article
- Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness: A concept analysis.Japan journal of nursing science : JJNS · 2020Review
- Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Article
- The perspectives of patients with lithium-induced end-stage renal disease.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2018Article
- Theoretical model and measurement of shared decision making in web-based pharmaceutical care consultation.Digital healthArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShared decision making has been promoted as standard care, but there has been debate on the possible types. On the one hand, there is a more 'instrumental'/objective approach focused on the exchange of information, but an 'interpersonal'/subjective patient involvement has been suggested as well. In this study we aim to investigate this further by assessing both actual and perceived patient involvement in medical decisions.
methodsEighty-one consultations between patients with bipolar disorder and their clinicians were observed and scored using the OPTION scale. Afterwards, the patients' experienced involvement was explored with the SDM-Q-9. Furthermore, several patient characteristics were gathered. Correlations between the scores were examined.
resultsThe clinicians scored on average 34.6 points on the OPTION scale. In contrast, patients scored on average 77.5 points on the SDM-Q-9, suggesting that patients felt more involved in the consultation than was observable.
conclusionOur patients with bipolar disorder feel involved in pharmacotherapy decisions, but this is not scored in objective observations. Our data suggest that there are implicit, interpersonal aspects of patient involvement in shared decision making, a concept that deserves further attention and conceptualisation.
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.