ArticleBJPsych open2022
No decision about me without me? Shared decision-making in mental healthcare.
Article in BJPsych open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Co-producing adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) care in South Africa: A patient-centred framework for agency, trust, satisfaction and continuity.The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa · 2026Article
- Shared Decision Making: The Prerequisite for Substantial Autonomy in Evidence-Based Practice.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- COVID-19 and mental health: Building back better or reimagining a new way forward?PLoS medicine · 2023Article
- A Perspective on Auditory Wellness: What It Is, Why It Is Important, and How It Can Be Managed.Trends in hearingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Is there really 'no decision about me without me'? This concept of shared decision-making is increasingly supported in the UK National Health Service and is to be welcomed. But the attempt to apply guidelines based on Western physical health settings to all psychiatric patients, across different cultural backgrounds, is problematic. Methodological difficulties when trying to apply the gold standard of randomised controlled trials to the real-life settings of mental health should be considered, especially when many patients with serious mental health problems are excluded, having been deemed to 'lack capacity'. Should guidelines originating in physical healthcare settings really be applied to mental health ones? Does one size really fit all?
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.