Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31175448›Full record

Observational studyEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2020

When does shared decision making is adopted in psychiatric clinical practice? Results from a European multicentric study.

M Luciano, G Sampogna, V Del Vecchio, S Loos, M Slade, E Clarke, M Nagy, A Kovacs, P Munk-Jørgensen, M Krogsgaard Bording and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Electroconvulsive therapy and autobiographical memory.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Clinical decision-making style preferences of European psychiatrists: Results from the Ambassadors survey in 38 countries.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

15 authors.

M LucianoDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy. mario.luciano@unicampania.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4338-1371
G SampognaDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
V Del VecchioDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
S LoosDepartment of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
M SladeSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
E ClarkeSection for Recovery, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.
M NagyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Debrecen Medical and Health Science Centre, Debrecen, Hungary.
A KovacsDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Debrecen Medical and Health Science Centre, Debrecen, Hungary.
P Munk-JørgensenDepartment for Organic Psychiatric Disorders and Emergency Ward, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
M Krogsgaard BordingUnit for Psychiatric Research, Aalborg Psychiatric Hospital, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
W KawohlUniversity Hospital for Psychiatry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
W RösslerUniversity Hospital for Psychiatry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
B PuschnerDepartment of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
A FiorilloDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
CEDAR Study Group

Funding

FP7 Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities 223290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To identify factors associated with the use of shared decision making in routine mental health care in a large multicenter European study. Data have been collected within the study "Clinical decision making and outcome in routine care for people with severe mental illness" (CEDAR), which is a naturalistic, longitudinal, observational study carried out in six European countries. Patients with a severe mental illness attending outpatient units and their treating clinicians have been recruited. Clinicians' Clinical Decision Making (CDM) styles have been explored through the Clinical Decision Making Style Scale. Patients' clinical and social outcomes have been assessed through validated assessment instruments. The sample consisted of 588 patients and 213 professionals. Professionals were mainly psychiatrists (35.7%), nurses (21.6%), support workers, social workers or occupational therapists (24.9%), psychologists (9.9%) or trainees in psychiatry (4.7%). In the majority of cases, clinicians adopted a shared CDM style. Shared CDM was more frequently adopted with patients with psychotic disorders, with a better quality of life and social functioning. At multivariate analyses, the likelihood of adopting shared decision making increased in patients with higher levels of interpersonal relationships' skills (p < 0.05) and global functioning (p < 0.01). On the contrary, being a trainee in psychiatry reduced the likelihood of adopting shared CDM (p < 0.008). Shared decision making has been adopted mainly when patients have a better functioning and less severe clinical symptomatology and by less trained clinicians, differently from national and international recommendations. More efforts should be made to implement interventions to promote shared CDM, with a specific focus for trainees in psychiatry.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelClinical Decision-MakingDecision Making, SharedMental Health ServicesProcess Assessment, Health CareProfessional-Patient RelationsAdultAmbulatory CareEuropeFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedPsychiatryClinical decision makingPatient-centered careShared decision making

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.