Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34352846›Full record

ArticleHarvard review of psychiatry

How Shared Is Shared Decision Making? Reaching the Full Potential of Patient-Clinician Collaboration in Mental Health.

Emily B H Treichler, Borsika A Rabin, Amy N Cohen, Gregory A Light

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harvard review of psychiatry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Experiential and Medical Knowledge of Shared Decision-Making: Exploring Clinician and Service User Perspectives in NHS Community Mental Health Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emily B H TreichlerFrom the Departments of Psychiatry (Drs. Treichler and Light) and Family Medicine and Public Health (Dr. Rabin), and Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, Altman Translational Research Institute (Dr. Rabin), University of California San Diego; VA Desert Pacific Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC), San Diego, CA (Drs. Treichler and Light); Center of Excellence in Stress and Mental Health, San Diego VA, La Jolla, CA (Dr. Rabin); American Psychiatric Association, Los Angeles, CA (Dr. Cohen).
Borsika A Rabin
Amy N Cohen
Gregory A Light
Cohen Children's Medical Center · US

Funding

VirologyP30AI036214 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI SUSAN JANET LITTLE · 1994 to 2026
$78.4M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI036214RRD VA IK2 RX003079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractShared decision making in mental health is a priority for stakeholders, but faces significant implementation barriers, particularly in settings intended to serve people with serious mental illnesses (SMI). As a result, current levels of shared decision making are low. We highlight these barriers and propose that a novel paradigm, collaborative decision making, will offer conceptual and practical solutions at the systemic and patient/clinician level. Collaborative decision making is tailored for populations like people with SMI and other groups who experience chronic and complex symptoms, along with power imbalances within health systems. Advancing from shared decision making to collaborative decision making clarifies the mission of the model: to facilitate an empowering and recovery-oriented decision-making process that assigns equal power and responsibility to patients and clinicians; to improve alignment of treatment decisions with patient values and priorities; to increase patient trust and confidence in clinicians and the treatment process; and, in the end, to improve treatment engagement, satisfaction, and outcomes. The primary purpose of collaborative decision making is to increase values-aligned care, therefore prioritizing inclusion of patient values, including cultural values and quality of life-related outcomes. Given the broad and constantly changing context of treatment and care for many people with SMI (and also other groups), this model is dynamic and continuously evolving, ready for use across diverse contexts. Implementation of collaborative decision making includes increasing patient knowledge but also patient power, comfort, and confidence. It is one tool to reshape patient-clinician and patient-system relationships and to increase access to value-aligned care for people with SMI and other groups.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedMental HealthDecision MakingHumansQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID34352846
PMCPMC12478557
OpenAlexW3187486422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.