ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Triadic Perspectives on Decision Making in Psychiatry: A Qualitative Study on Service Users, Caregivers and Healthcare Professionals in Latvia.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- 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
- Dose reduction and discontinuation of antipsychotics in psychotic disorders: a systematic review of qualitative studies and meta-synthesis.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesDecision making is fundamental to personal autonomy and person-centered, rights-based psychiatric care. This study explored the perceptions and experiences of decision making in psychiatric care from the perspectives of service users, caregivers, and healthcare professionals, identifying contexts that facilitate or hinder these practices.
methodsAn exploratory-descriptive qualitative design was applied, using semi-structured interviews with eight service users, six caregivers, and seven healthcare professionals (21 interviews in total). Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed through inductive content analysis.
resultsFour main categories were identified: (1) antecedents for decision making, (2) challenges in decision making, (3) consequences of decision making, and (4) recommendations for improvement.
conclusionsThis study provides insight into how decisions in psychiatric care are made in Latvia, highlighting the legal, personal, and institutional factors influencing these processes. Participants offered valuable perspectives, identifying both facilitators and barriers to autonomous decision making, as well as suggesting necessary improvements. The findings suggest the need for legal reform and systemic improvements in practices that favor agency in decision making. Additionally, they underscore the importance of strengthening individual capacities to support meaningful collaboration among service users, caregivers, and healthcare professionals in making healthcare decisions that enhance the quality of care and well-being of people with mental health difficulties.
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.