ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
The Decision-Making Process of Antidepressant Use Among Patients with Depression: A Grounded Theory Study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore how patients with depression and prior antidepressant use make decisions about antidepressant treatment and to construct a theoretical model from their perspectives. Methods: A constructivist grounded theory study was conducted. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were undertaken with 26 patients with depression who had used antidepressants for at least one continuous treatment period of one month or longer, including current users and those who had discontinued medication. Data were collected through iterative theoretical sampling and analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding until theoretical saturation was achieved. Results: The core process was conceptualized as "Weighing the Pros and Cons: Navigating Between the Quagmire of Illness and the Hope of Treatment." This process comprised three dynamic, non-linear stages: decision trigger, active evaluation, and dynamic adaptation. Decision-making was initiated when patients' tolerance threshold was broken by internal distress and/or external prompts, including authoritative advice. During active evaluation, patients balanced the perceived necessity of medication as a "chemical lever" against concerns about stigma, side effects, alienation, and dependence. Trust in physicians and individualized benefit-cost-risk trade-offs shaped initial decisions. During dynamic adaptation, medication-taking behaviors formed a continuum from strict adherence and negotiated self-adjustment to avoidance-oriented or distress-driven discontinuation. Treatment feedback continuously reshaped subsequent decisions. Conclusion: Antidepressant decision-making is a dynamic process of sense-making and negotiation. The findings suggest that not all non-adherence should be interpreted as strategic self-management, highlight authoritative third-party advice as a trigger for treatment initiation, and indicate that identity tension may shape some patients' medication experiences during long-term adaptation.
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.