ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Factors influencing patient decision-making on a multimodal precision medicine algorithm for depression: a qualitative European multicentre study of the PROMPT consortium.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Narrative Review of Ethical Issues in Precision Psychiatry: Mapping Unresolved Tensions Across Modalities.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Precision medicine promises to improve treatment outcomes by tailoring interventions to patients' individual characteristics. However, the use of precision medicine tools requires patient acceptance, which remains underexplored. This qualitative study investigated factors influencing patient perspectives on a multimodal precision medicine algorithm to predict antidepressant response in patients suffering from Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Methods: To explore patients' perspectives on the use of a multimodal algorithm, semi-structured focus groups were conducted with 44 patients diagnosed with moderate to severe depression across three European sites (Germany, Poland, Italy) in the PROMPT study. Discussions were transcribed and translated into English for analysis. A qualitative, structured content analysis approach was then used to analyse the data. Results: Patients' perspectives on using a multimodal algorithm in MDD revealed a complex interplay of decision-making factors: while perceived clinical benefits, such as a reduction in trial-and-error prescribing and reassurance, promoted acceptance of the algorithm, concerns about cost, waiting time and the emotional impact of unfavourable results tended to discourage acceptance. Patients' general beliefs about mental illness and its treatment shaped their attitudes toward the application of the algorithm. Many participants emphasised the importance of trust in physicians and preferred testing within the context of an established therapeutic relationship. Misconceptions about the algorithm's accuracy and capabilities, and fears of medical reductionism, were common. Conclusions: While patients are open to the use of a multimodal precision medicine algorithm for MDD, they emphasised the need for individualised, transparent communication and emotional support. The results highlight the importance of patient-centred communication strategies and guidelines for the ethical implementation of precision psychiatry.
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.