Cited by 17Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychiatric care and mental health services

When does shared decision making is adopted in psychiatric clinical practice? Results from a European multicentric study

Open access
For the CEDAR Study Group, Luciano, M., Sampogna, G., Del Vecchio, V., Loos, S., Slade, M., Clarke, E., Nagy, M. +7 more·2020·European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience

Abstract

To identify factors associated with the use of shared decision making in routine mental health care in a large multicenter European study. Data have been collected within the study "Clinical decision making and outcome in routine care for people with severe mental illness" (CEDAR), which is a naturalistic, longitudinal, observational study carried out in six European countries. Patients with a severe mental illness attending outpatient units and their treating clinicians have been recruited. Clinicians' Clinical Decision Making (CDM) styles have been explored through the Clinical Decision Making Style Scale. Patients' clinical and social outcomes have been assessed through validated assessment instruments. The sample consisted of 588 patients and 213 professionals. Professionals were mainly psychiatrists (35.7%), nurses (21.6%), support workers, social workers or occupational therapists (24.9%), psychologists (9.9%) or trainees in psychiatry (4.7%). In the majority of cases, clinicians adopted a shared CDM style. Shared CDM was more frequently adopted with patients with psychotic disorders, with a better quality of life and social functioning. At multivariate analyses, the likelihood of adopting shared decision making increased in patients with higher levels of interpersonal relationships' skills (p < 0.05) and global functioning (p < 0.01). On the contrary, being a trainee in psychiatry reduced the likelihood of adopting shared CDM (p < 0.008). Shared decision making has been adopted mainly when patients have a better functioning and less severe clinical symptomatology and by less trained clinicians, differently from national and international recommendations. More efforts should be made to implement interventions to promote shared CDM, with a specific focus for trainees in psychiatry.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00406-019-01031-y

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
For the CEDAR Study Group, Luciano, M., Sampogna, G., Del Vecchio, V., Loos, S., Slade, M., Clarke, E., Nagy, M., Kovacs, A., Munk-Jørgensen, P., Krogsgaard Bording, M., Kawohl, W., Rössler, W., Puschner, B., & Fiorillo, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (IT)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Debrecen (HU)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
Corresponding author
Luciano, M.
Venue
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
Published
2019-06-07
Volume
270
Issue
6
Pages
645-653
ISSN
  • 0003-9373 (ISSN-L)
  • 0940-1334
  • 1433-8491
OpenAlex
W2954090422
Cited by
17
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
FP7 Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities (223290)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
shared decision-making, severe mental illness, psychosis, quality of life, social functioning, global functioning, psychiatric trainees, routine mental health care, clinician-patient relationship
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Decision Making, Shared, Psychosocial Functioning, Adult, Ambulatory Care, Attitude of Health Personnel, Mental Disorders, Europe, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychiatry, Psychotic Disorders, Quality of Life, Process Assessment, Health Care, Social Skills

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review