ArticleHarvard review of psychiatry
How Shared Is Shared Decision Making? Reaching the Full Potential of Patient-Clinician Collaboration in Mental Health.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Preferences for Decision-Making Style and Knowledge of and Attitudes To Recovery in Mental Health Professionals Working in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings in Routine Mental Health Practice: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study in the Danish Mental Health Services.Administration and policy in mental health · 2026Article
- Feasibility of implementing collaborative decision skills training among veterans with psychosis: a qualitative study guided by the practical, robust implementation and sustainability model.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Review
- From Idealist to Realist-Designing and Implementing Shared Decision-Making Interventions in the Choice of Antipsychotic Prescription in People Living with Psychosis (SHAPE): A Realist Review.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2025Review
- An iterative approach to evaluating impact of CTSA projects using the translational science benefits model.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Shared decision-making with patients with complex care needs: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Exploring Patient Preferences Related to Shared Decision-Making in Chronic Disease Management.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- Perspectives on the implementation and collaborative facilitation of an intervention to engage young adults in psychiatric rehabilitation.Psychiatric rehabilitation journal · 2024Article
- The journey of service users with complex mental health needs: a qualitative study.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- Preferences of U.S. Veterans Making and Receiving Caring Cards: A Peer Approach to Recovery-Oriented Suicide Prevention.Practice innovations (Washington, D.C.) · 2024Article
- Military culture and collaborative decision-making in mental healthcare: cultural, communication and policy considerations.BJPsych open · 2023Article
- Using a stakeholder-engaged, iterative, and systematic approach to adapting collaborative decision skills training for implementation in VA psychosocial rehabilitation and recovery centers.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- A Mixed-Methods Usability Pilot of a Value-Goal Elicitation Tool in the Inpatient Setting for Older Adults Anticipating Post-Acute Care.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.