Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40191826›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient experience2025

Patient Choice in Depression: Are We Failing to Implement NICE Guidelines?

Susan McPherson, Claire Wicks, Peter Beresford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient experience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Susan McPhersonInstitute of Public Health and Wellbeing, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9478-9932
Claire WicksSchool of Health and Social Care, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8330-5373
Peter BeresfordShaping Our Lives, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2022, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) introduced "patient choice" as a major new principle in the guideline "Depression in adults: treatment and management." In 2024, NICE launched a "patient decision aid" to provide practical support for this principle. We explore data on the treatment of depression from the United Kingdom's National Health Service before and after the guideline was published to consider whether patient choice has been enabled by these developments. The types of treatment most commonly delivered prior to the new guideline (Guided Self-Help books, Counseling for Depression, Cognitive Behavior Therapy, and antidepressant prescriptions) are now more common than before. This suggests that the inclusion of patient choice in the guidelines has not yet translated into patients making a wider range of choices. We consider how patient choice came to be prioritized over patient experience in the guideline development process; whether the patient decision aid is likely to support patient choice and shared decision making; and whether there may be underlying ideological barriers which mean a more straightforward emphasis on patient experience would be a more logical route to enhancing patient choice.

Indexed as

depressionhealth policypatient choicepatient experiencepublic health

Identifiers

PMID40191826
PMCPMC11970051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.