Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35300633›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2022

Experiences of shared decision making among patients with psychotic disorders in Norway: a qualitative study.

Espen W Haugom, Bjørn Stensrud, Gro Beston, Torleif Ruud, Anne S Landheim

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03271242 (A Pairwise Randomized Study on Implementation of Guidelines and Evidence Based Treatments of Psychoses), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT03271242 completednot on this map

A Pairwise Randomized Study on Implementation of Guidelines and Evidence Based Treatments of Psychoses

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Hospital, AkershusRan2016 to 2018Enrolled325ConditionsPsychotic DisordersArmsSystematic implementation support, No implementation support
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Person-centred suicide prevention: key elements from the perspective of people living with suicidality.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Espen W HaugomNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Concurrent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders, Innlandet Hospital Trust, P.B 104, 2381, Brumunddal, Norway. espen.woldsengen.haugom@sykehuset-innlandet.no.
Bjørn StensrudNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Concurrent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders, Innlandet Hospital Trust, P.B 104, 2381, Brumunddal, Norway.
Gro BestonNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Concurrent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders, Innlandet Hospital Trust, P.B 104, 2381, Brumunddal, Norway.
Torleif RuudDivision of Mental Health Services, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway.
Anne S LandheimNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Concurrent Substance Abuse and Mental Health Disorders, Innlandet Hospital Trust, P.B 104, 2381, Brumunddal, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision making (SDM) is a process where the patient and the health professional collaborate to make decisions based on both the patient's preferences and the best available evidence. Patients with psychotic disorders are less involved in making decisions than they would like. More knowledge of these patients' experiences of SDM may improve implementation. The study aim was to describe and explore experiences of SDM among patients with psychotic disorders in mental health care.

methodsIndividual interviews were conducted with ten persons with a psychotic disorder. They were service users of two community mental health centres. The transcribed material was analysed using qualitative content analysis.

resultsFour-fifths of the participants in this study found that they received insufficient information about their health situation and treatment options. All participants experienced that only one kind of treatment was often presented, which was usually medication. Although the study found that different degrees of involvement were practised, two thirds of the participants had little impact on choices to be made. This was despite the fact that they wanted to participate and felt capable of participating, even during periods of more severe illness. The participants described how important it was that SDM in psychosis was based on a trusting relationship, but stated that it took time to establish such a relationship.

conclusionsThis study with ten participants indicates that patients with psychotic disorders experienced that they were not allowed to participate as much as they wanted to and believed they were capable of. Some patients were involved, but to a lesser degree than in SDM. More and better tailored information communicated within a trusting relationship is needed to provide psychotic patients with a better basis for active involvement in decisions about their health care.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedPsychotic DisordersDecision MakingHumansPatient ParticipationQualitative Researchmental health servicespsychotic disordersqualitative researchShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID35300633
PMCPMC8932170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.