ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Shared decision making in eating disorders: the patient and clinician perspectives.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Shared Decision Making (SDM) is essential to establish a functional and efficient patient-clinician relationship. SDM appears challenging in mental health, and even more so in eating disorders (EDs). Treatment is complex, patients' engagement is difficult and robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of SDM in this field is still limited. This study aims to evaluate and compare SDM between patients with EDs and those with other major psychiatric conditions, and to identify potential predictors in SDM. Methods: A total of 282 outpatients with major psychiatric disorders (i.e., bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorder, EDs) were consecutively recruited. For each consultation, both the patient and the treating clinician independently completed the Shared Decision Making-Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and its clinician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Results: Patient ratings of SDM (SDM-Q-9) do not significantly differ across diagnostic groups, whereas clinician ratings (SDM-Q-Doc) are significantly lower for the ED group only. No differences emerge among ED diagnosis, although patients with binge eating disorder tend to have higher SDM scores. Interestingly, differences between patient and clinician views on SDM emerge at specific stages of the decision-making process. Age, education and follow-up duration significantly contribute to explaining differences in SDM from both patients' and clinicians' points of view. Conclusion: Patients with EDs perceive themselves as equally involved in treatment decision as those with other major mental disorders, yet clinicians report lower SDM in this group suggesting a perceptual gap. SDM in EDs is affected by socio-demographic and clinical variables. Further development of SDM techniques is crucial for improving the therapeutic alliance and addressing the cognitive and motivational features of EDs.
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.