Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34823487›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2021

Mental health professionals' perceived barriers and enablers to shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management: a qualitative systematic review.

Nafiso Ahmed, Sally Barlow, Lisa Reynolds, Nicholas Drey, Fareha Begum, Elizabeth Tuudah, Alan Simpson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. From Plan to Practice: Embedding Safety Planning in Inpatient Mental Health Care.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Nafiso AhmedCentre for Mental Health Research, School of Health Sciences, City University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK. Nafiso.ahmed.2@city.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6732-1317
Sally BarlowCentre for Mental Health Research, School of Health Sciences, City University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
Lisa ReynoldsSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health, Buckinghamshire New University, 106 Oxford Rd, Uxbridge, UB8 1NA, UK.
Nicholas DreyCentre for Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, City University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
Fareha BegumCentre for Mental Health Research, School of Health Sciences, City University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
Elizabeth TuudahHealth Service and Population Research, David Goldberg Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Alan SimpsonHealth Service and Population Research, David Goldberg Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk assessment and risk management are fundamental processes in the delivery of safe and effective mental health care, yet studies have shown that service users are often not directly involved or are unaware that an assessment has taken place. Shared decision-making in mental health systems is supported by research and advocated in policy. This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42016050457) aimed to explore the perceived barriers and enablers to implementing shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management from mental health professionals' perspectives.

methodsPRISMA guidelines were followed in the conduct and reporting of this review. Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED and Internurse were systematically searched from inception to December 2019. Data were mapped directly into the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a psychological framework that includes 14 domains relevant to behaviour change. Thematic synthesis was used to identify potential barriers and enablers within each domain. Data were then matched to the three components of the COM-B model: Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation.

resultsTwenty studies met the eligibility criteria. The findings of this review indicate that shared decision-making is not a concept commonly used in mental health services when exploring processes of risk assessment and risk management. The key barriers identified were 'power and best interest' (social influences) and 'my professional role and responsibility' (social/professional role and identity). Key enablers were 'therapeutic relationship' (social influences) and 'value collaboration' (reinforcement). The salient barriers, enablers and linked TDF domains matched COM-B components 'opportunity' and 'motivation'.

conclusionThe review highlights the need for further empirical research to better understand current practice and mental health professionals' experiences and attitudes towards shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelMental HealthHumansMotivationProfessional RoleQualitative ResearchRisk AssessmentDecision makingMental healthRisk assessmentRisk managementSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34823487
PMCPMC8613998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.