Cultural impacts on shared decision-making: A cross-European study of psychiatrist preferences in 38 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process between clinicians and service users to select treatment, guided by evidence and service user preferences. SDM has clinical, economic, and ethical benefits compared to clinician-led decision-making; yet, implementation remains challenging. An important knowledge gap is the influence of culture on implementation. Cultural impacts on service user decision-making preferences have been documented, but little is known about how culture impacts clinician preferences. This study examined associations between country-level cultural characteristics and decision-making preferences of psychiatrists in routine care settings across Europe. METHODS: We analysed data from 751 psychiatrists and trainees in 38 European countries, who completed the Clinical Decision-Making Style-Staff (CDMS-S) scale. Country-level Hofstede cultural dimensions were linked to CDMS-S scores using univariate and multivariate regression models. Mixed-effects models were used to account for country-level clustering and controlling for professional and economic variables. RESULTS: In univariate analyses, all six dimensions were associated with SDM preferences. However, only three remained significant in mixed-effects models. Higher levels of Indulgence and Individualism were associated with stronger preferences for SDM, while higher Power Distance was associated with more clinician-led decision-making. These associations did not remain significant in fully adjusted multivariate models, suggesting professional and systematic factors mediate cultural influences. CONCLUSIONS: Indulgence, Individualism, and Power Distance are associated with psychiatrists' decision-making preferences across Europe. Culturally sensitive SDM interventions should address not only clinician attitudes but also healthcare structures and patient expectations. Findings offer an empirical foundation for tailoring SDM training and policy to diverse cultural contexts within European psychiatry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".