Cited by 25Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMental Health and Patient InvolvementHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints

Shared decision-making for psychiatric medication: A mixed-methods evaluation of a UK training programme for service users and clinicians

Open access
Ramon, Shulamit, Morant, Nicola, Stead, Ute, Perry, Ben·2017·International Journal of Social Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is recognised as a promising strategy to enhance good collaboration between clinicians and service users, yet it is not practised regularly in mental health. Aims: Develop and evaluate a novel training programme to enhance SDM in psychiatric medication management for service users, psychiatrists and care co-ordinators. Methods: The training programme design was informed by existing literature and local stakeholders consultations. Parallel group-based training programmes on SDM process were delivered to community mental health service users and providers. Evaluation consisted of quantitative measures at baseline and 12-month follow-up, post-programme participant feedback and qualitative interviews. Results: Training was provided to 47 service users, 35 care-coordinators and 12 psychiatrists. Participant feedback was generally positive. Statistically significant changes in service users’ decisional conflict and perceptions of practitioners’ interactional style in promoting SDM occurred at the follow-up. Qualitative data suggested positive impacts on service users’ and care co-ordinators confidence to explore medication experience, and group-based training was valued. Conclusions: The programme was generally acceptable to service users and practitioners. This indicates the value of conducting a larger study and exploring application for non-medical decisions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0020764017733764

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kaminskiy E. (2015). The elephant in the room: A theoretical exploration of power for shared decision making in psychiatric medication management. Intersectionalities: A Global Journal of Social Work Analysis, Research, Polity and Practice, 42, 19– 38.
  2. Stayley K. (2014). Case study 1: Shared decision making in psychiatric medication management (The ShIMME Project). In Kristina S. (ed) A series of case studies illustrating the impact of service user and carer involvement on research: The mental health research network (pp. 6- 13). London, England: NIHR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ramon, S., Morant, N., Stead, U., & Perry, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Hertfordshire (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Freelance Researcher, London, UK
Corresponding author
Ramon, Shulamit
Venue
International Journal of Social Psychiatry
Published
2017-10-25
Volume
63
Issue
8
Pages
763-772
ISSN
  • 0020-7640 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2854
OpenAlex
W2765269071
Cited by
25
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Social Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Research for Patient Benefit Programme
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 › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Keywords
shared decision-making, psychiatric medication, training program, service users, clinicians, psychiatrists, decisional conflict, medication experience, community mental health, group training
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Community Mental Health Services, Decision Making, Education, Female, United Kingdom, Health Personnel, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Qualitative Research, Medication Therapy Management

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