ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Triadic shared decision making in emergency psychiatry: an explorative study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dose reduction and discontinuation of antipsychotics in psychotic disorders: a systematic review of qualitative studies and meta-synthesis.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Triadic Perspectives on Decision Making in Psychiatry: A Qualitative Study on Service Users, Caregivers and Healthcare Professionals in Latvia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to understand the complex triadic shared decision-making process in psychiatric emergency services, focusing on the choice between inpatient and outpatient care post-triage. It also identify scenarios where patient or significant others' preferences override clinical judgment.
methodsConducted in the greater Rotterdam area, Netherlands, this explorative study surveyed patient and significant others' preferences for voluntary or involuntary admission versus outpatient treatment, alongside professionals' clinical indications. Descriptive statistics were used to profile participants, and preference data were used to categorize groups, revealing patterns of agreement.
resultsAmong 5680 assessments involving significant others, four groups emerged: agreement among the triad on in- or outpatient care (48.2%), patient disagrees (38.5%), significant others disagree (11.0%), and professionals disagree (2.3%). Professionals' recommendations were followed more frequently (57.0%) than patient (9.4%) or significant others' preferences (11.0%).
conclusionsWe observed that consensus could often be reached among the members of the triad on inpatient or outpatient care following triage. Disagreements typically occurred when patients preferred outpatient care while others favoured inpatient care, or when significant others advocated for inpatient care while others preferred outpatient care. While professionals' recommendations held the most influence, they could be overridden in cases where valid criteria mandated involuntary care.
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.