ReviewSchizophrenia bulletin2025
From Idealist to Realist-Designing and Implementing Shared Decision-Making Interventions in the Choice of Antipsychotic Prescription in People Living With Psychosis (SHAPE): A Realist Review (Part 2-Designing SDM Interventions: Optimizing Design and Local Implementation).
Review in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clozapine prescribing in treatment-resistant schizophrenia - an updated systematic literature review of barriers and facilitators among clinicians.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Experiential and Medical Knowledge of Shared Decision-Making: Exploring Clinician and Service User Perspectives in NHS Community Mental Health Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Global trends in clozapine utilisation between 2014 and 2024: a longitudinal epidemiological study with data from 75 countries.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundShared decision-making (SDM) implementation remains limited in psychosis management, particularly within antipsychotic prescribing. When and why prescribers engage in SDM within these contexts is largely unknown. Part 2 of this 2-part realist review aimed to understand what SDM intervention strategies and local implementation contexts are responsible for successful prescriber engagement and why. STUDY
designCINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for evidence to develop realist program theories explaining relationships between meso- and micro-level contexts and impact on prescriber behaviors. STUDY
resultsFrom 106 included documents, 5 program theories were developed explaining mechanisms responsible for increasing prescriber engagement with desired behaviors, alongside facilitative features within service delivery contexts and workforce development. Key mechanisms included reducing prescriber fear of sole responsibility for harm, reducing the perceived burden of SDM, increasing prescriber confidence in their ability to productively negotiate treatment consultations and their confidence to safely increase patient autonomy within decision-making. These mechanisms should be the focus of those interested in designing SDM interventions to increase prescriber engagement and those responsible for translating results of effective interventions into real-world settings to ensure facilitative contexts are maintained.
conclusionIntervention strategies that should be prioritized for scale-up include attempting SDM within existing therapeutic relationships, adopting a multidisciplinary team (MDT) responsibility for SDM implementation, and workforce training in skillsets required of effective SDM application. Efforts to standardize psychosis care via MDTs and systematically reduce discontinuity and fragmentation of care are required at policy-level.
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.