ArticleThe Psychiatric quarterly2019
Missing Ingredients in Shared Decision-Making?
Article in The Psychiatric quarterly, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shifting Perspectives on the Challenges of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Care.Community mental health journal · 2024Pooled it
- Shared decision-making in depression: From a generalized ethical imperative to a personalized approach? A narrative review.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026Review
- The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Promoting Family Participation in Treatment for Adolescents and Young Adults with First-Episode Psychosis.Community mental health journal · 2025Article
- Correlation analysis between physicians' evaluations of doctor-patient relationship and their preferences for shared decision-making in China.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative approach to making decisions in health care, and is a cornerstone of person-centered care. While providers are increasingly expected to utilize SDM in routine practice, widespread and sustainable implementation has proven difficult, especially in the care of individuals diagnosed with serious mental illnesses, and physicians and patients continue to identify barriers to effective collaboration. To date, SDM research has largely focused on the provision of high-quality clinical information from doctors to patients to the neglect of what may be the most important, and transformative, aspect of SDM-the relationship itself. In this forum, the lack of attention to the relationship in SDM research and practice will be explored, along with the relational qualities that need to be in place to implement SDM in the care of persons with serious mental illness based on the findings from a mixed-methods, participatory research project.
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.