Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41694978›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Experiences of Dissensus Between People Living With Mental Illness and Their Care Providers.

Yuji Fujimoto, Takaomi Furuno, Narumi Fujino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. 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.

Yuji FujimotoDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, Saga, JPN.
Takaomi FurunoDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, Saga, JPN.
Narumi FujinoDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, Saga, JPN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveShared decision making (SDM) is fundamental to personal recovery; however, the values held by service users and care providers often differ. This study aimed to focus on dissensus, defined as a state in which value- and opinion-based differences between service users and care providers are not resolved but are maintained according to specific contexts, and to clarify the experiences through which service users recognized dissensus with care providers in psychiatric care settings.

methodsFocus group interviews (FGIs) were conducted with six service users with prior experience of receiving psychiatric treatment or services. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

resultsTwo major themes were identified as experiences of dissensus: the perception that clinical recovery was prioritized over personal recovery, and the feeling that opportunities for self-disclosure were constrained by the superior hierarchical positioning of care providers. DISCUSSION: The findings highlight a gap between the values of service users, who prioritize opportunities for challenge, autonomy, and identity reconstruction within equitable and collaborative relationships, and those of care providers, who prioritize safety, risk management, and role-based professional responsibilities. These dynamics suggest the importance of supporting collaborative partnerships that reconcile conflicting values in psychiatric care.

conclusionIn the context of SDM for psychiatric care, the goal should extend beyond achieving consensus; explicitly acknowledging value conflicts arising from differing roles and fostering dissensus grounded in mutual respect may contribute to a more nuanced and effective approach to SDM.

Indexed as

dissensusmental illnesspersonal recoverypsychiatric careshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID41694978
PMCPMC12904001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.