ArticleJMIR human factors2025
A Mobile App Designed to Promote Shared Decision-Making in the Treatment of Psychotic Disorders: Feasibility and Acceptability Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward hybrid mental health care: an early health technology assessment based on stakeholder analysis and economic simulations.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- Digital and Immersive Technologies for Rehabilitation in Complex Psychosis: State of the Art and Future Directions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Exploring Video Consultations Across the Public and Private Sectors in Norway: Semistructured Interview Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Strengthening shared decision-making in mental health care may improve the quality of services and treatment outcomes, but its implementation in services for severe mental disorders is currently lacking. Objective: This study aims to explore the feasibility and acceptability of iTandem (University of Oslo), a mobile app designed to promote shared decision-making in the treatment of psychotic disorders. In addition, the study aims to investigate mechanisms that potentially contribute to the intended effect of the app. iTandem is a therapy supplement that facilitates patient involvement in decisions regarding treatment goals and focus areas. It is designed for personalized use and contains 8 optional modules: sleep, medication, recovery, mood, psychosis, activity, substance use, and feedback concerning therapy. Methods: Patients undergoing assessment or treatment for psychotic disorders and their clinicians were recruited for the study. Patients and clinicians jointly used iTandem as part of standard treatment in a 6-week trial. We used a mixed-methods study design with a clear emphasis on qualitative methods. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed through descriptive statistics based on preintervention and postintervention questionnaires and app usage data, in addition to text responses to open-ended items. We conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of postintervention interviews to elaborate these measures and to explore mechanisms potentially contributing to achieving shared decision-making when using iTandem. Results: A total of 9 patients and 8 clinicians completed the trial. The participants evaluated iTandem as a user-friendly and acceptable tool, but there were considerable variations in how the app was integrated into treatment and in perceptions of its clinical value. The thematic analysis suggests that iTandem has the potential to facilitate shared decision-making through supporting cognition and shifting the patient's role. We also identified scaffolding structures, an analogy of personalized support, as a precondition for these mechanisms and for the overall feasibility and acceptability of iTandem. Conclusions: iTandem was generally perceived as a feasible and acceptable tool in the treatment of patients with psychotic disorders. Our findings suggest that nonclinical aspects, such as support structures, are important to the feasibility and acceptability of such digital interventions and patients' aptness for digitalized treatment in general. Future research should explore related nonclinical aspects further instead of defining potential target groups based on diagnoses and symptom severity alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.