ArticlePEC innovation2024
Patients' and health professionals' perspectives regarding shared decision making in the psychiatric inpatient setting - A multiple qualitative case study.
Article in PEC innovation, 2024. 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.
- A Qualitative Comparative Study of the Doctor-Patient Relationship Model and Decision-Making Style among Chinese and Japanese Doctors.Asian bioethics review · 2026Article
- Article
- Psychiatric nurses' understandings and attitudes toward the participation of patients with mental disorders in shared decision-making: a phenomenological study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Shared decision-making is one promising approach to promoting recovery and person-centred care but seems challenging for implementation in clinical practice. This study aimed to explore how patients and health professionals experience shared decision-making and its facilitators and barriers. Methods: A multiple qualitative case study design was chosen, using a constant comparative method. Multiple data sources were used, including individual interviews, observation, document analysis and a focus group. Results: Through first a within-case analysis and then second a cross-case analysis, four patient profiles and their potential for shared decision-making were constructed. The results indicate that in the daily routine of the psychiatric inpatient setting different forms of decision making are used, even though health professionals advocate shared decision-making as the favored approach. Patients also have varying expectations and perceptions regarding shared decision-making, which is reflected in the degree of their involvement. Conclusion: Shared decision-making could be enhanced in the future by a more proactive communication style and the proactive provision of information on the part of health professionals, in order to enhance patient participation in decision-making. Innovation: The study identified different forms of decision-making within the acute psychiatric inpatient setting, highlighting the gap between the advocated SDM approach and its practical implementation. This divergence is a key aspect, as it underlines the complexity of implementing SDM in real clinical settings.
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.