Observational studySocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2025
Shared decision-making in the treatment of bipolar disorder: findings from a nationwide naturalistic cohort study in everyday clinical practice.
Observational study in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2025. 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.
- Understanding Antipsychotic Polypharmacy in Bipolar Disorder: The Role of Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics in a Naturalistic Inpatient Setting.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2026Article
- Development of a patient decision aid prototype on the decision to continue, reduce or discontinue antipsychotic medication following remission of first-episode psychosis.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- Bridging the Gap Between Efficacy and Practice: A Systematic Review of Shared Decision-Making in Severe Mental Illness.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Shared medication coordination in a social psychiatric residence: adaptation to meet local requirements.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is of increasing importance in mental health care, however, large studies on the effects of SDM in bipolar disorder (BD) are scarce.
aimTo gain insight into the relationships between SDM, guideline concordance of treatments in everyday practice, satisfaction with care, and medication adherence in BD.
methodIn a nationwide observational study on the treatment of BD, patients were asked questions about their involvement in treatment. These questions were clustered according to the three-talk model (TTM) for SDM, which involves team talk, option talk, and decision talk. A composite concordance score for multimodal treatments was made, and satisfaction with care (score 1 to 10) and medication adherence (DAI-10) were measured.
results839 patients with BD from various outpatient treatment centers were included. Patients were highly involved in decision-making. In multiple regression, team talk was significantly positively associated with guideline concordance (b = 5.10, p = .045), and decision talk was positively associated with satisfaction with care (b = 0.82, p < .001) and medication adherence (b = 1.18, p = .003).
conclusionPositive associations were found between SDM, guideline concordance, satisfaction with care, and medication adherence, suggesting that investing in these steps of the decision-making process together with patients and their significant others, will help to improve quality of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39377952What 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.