Shared decision making is an ethical imperative

Decision aid prototype development for parents considering adenotonsillectomy for their children with sleep disordered breathing

Background

To describe the process involved in developing a decision aid prototype for parents considering adenotonsillectomy for their children with sleep disordered breathing.

Methods

A paper-based decision aid prototype was developed using the framework proposed by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaborative. The decision aid focused on two main treatment options: watchful waiting and adenotonsillectomy. Usability was assessed with parents of pediatric patients and providers with qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interviews, which included open-ended user feedback.

Results

A steering committee composed of key stakeholders was assembled. A needs assessment was then performed, which confirmed the need for a decision support tool. A decision aid prototype was developed and modified based on semi-structured qualitative interviews and a scoping literature review. The prototype provided information on the condition, risk and benefits of treatments, and values clarification. The prototype underwent three cycles of accessibility, feasibility, and comprehensibility testing, incorporating feedback from all stakeholders to develop the final decision aid prototype.

Conclusion

A standardized, iterative methodology was used to develop a decision aid prototype for parents considering adenotonsillectomy for their children with sleep disordered breathing. The decision aid prototype appeared feasible, acceptable and comprehensible, and may serve as an effective means of improving shared decision-making.

From providing a service to being of service: advances in person-centred care in mental health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores the concept of person-centred care, giving particular attention to its application in mental health and its relationship to recovery. It then outlines a framework for understanding the variety of approaches that have been used to operationalize person-centred care, focusing particularly on shared decision-making and self-directed care, two practices that have significant implications for mental health internationally.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite growing recognition of person-centred care as an essential component of recovery-orientated practice, the levels of uptake of shared decision-making and self-directed care in mental health remain low. The most significant barrier appears to be the challenge presented to service providers by one of the key principles of person-centred care, namely empowerment.

SUMMARY

Shared decision-making and self-directed support, two practices based upon the principles of person-centred care, have the potential for being effective tools for recovery. Full engagement of clinicians is crucial for their successful uptake into practice. More research is needed to address both outcomes and implementation.

Shared decision making in endocrinology: present and future directions

In medicine and endocrinology, there are few clinical circumstances in which clinicians can accurately predict what is best for their patients. As a result, patients and clinicians frequently have to make decisions about which there is uncertainty. Uncertainty results from limitations in the research evidence, unclear patient preferences, or an inability to predict how treatments will fit into patients' daily lives. The work that patients and clinicians do together to address the patient's situation and engage in a deliberative dialogue about reasonable treatment options is often called shared decision making. Decision aids are evidence-based tools that facilitate this process. Shared decision making is a patient-centred approach in which clinicians share information about the benefits, harms, and burden of different reasonable diagnostic and treatment options, and patients explain what matters to them in view of their particular values, preferences, and personal context. Beyond the ethical argument in support of this approach, decision aids have been shown to improve patients' knowledge about the available options, accuracy of risk estimates, and decisional comfort. Decision aids also promote patient participation in the decision-making process. Despite accumulating evidence from clinical trials, policy support, and expert recommendations in endocrinology practice guidelines, shared decision making is still not routinely implemented in endocrine practice. Additional work is needed to enrich the number of available tools and to implement them in practice workflows. Also, although the evidence from randomised controlled trials favours the use of this shared decision making in other settings, populations, and illnesses, the effect of this approach has been studied in a few endocrine disorders. Future pragmatic trials are needed to explore the effect and feasibility of shared decision making implementation into routine endocrinology and primary care practice. With the available evidence, however, endocrinologists can now start to practice shared decision making, partner with their patients, and use their expertise to formulate treatment plans that reflect patient preferences and are more likely to fit into the context of patients' lives. In this Personal View, we describe shared decision making, the evidence behind the approach, and why and how both endocrinologists and their patients could benefit from this approach.

Determining engagement in services for high-need individuals with serious mental illness

This study examined whether Medicaid claims and other administrative data could identify high-need individuals with serious mental illness in need of outreach in a large urban setting. A claims-based notification algorithm identified individuals belonging to high-need cohorts who may not be receiving needed services. Reviewers contacted providers who previously served the individuals to confirm whether they were in need of outreach. Over 10,000 individuals set a notification flag over 12-months. Disengagement was confirmed in 55 % of completed reviews, but outreach was initiated for only 30 %. Disengagement and outreach status varied by high-need cohort.

Is Shared Decision Making for End-of-Life Decisions Associated With Better Outcomes as Compared to Other Forms of Decision Making? A Systematic Literature Review

Background: Whether shared decision making (SDM) has been evaluated for end-of-life (EOL) decisions as compared to other forms of decision making has not been studied. Purpose: To summarize the evidence on SDM being associated with better outcomes for EOL decision making, as compared to other forms of decision making. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched through April 2014. Study Selection: Studies were selected that evaluated SDM, compared to any other decision making style, for an EOL decision. Data Extraction: Components of SDM tested, comparators to SDM, EOL decision being assessed, and outcomes measured. Data Synthesis: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (three experimental and four observational studies). Results were analyzed using narrative synthesis. All three experimental studies compared SDM interventions to usual care. The four observational studies compared SDM to doctor-controlled decision making, or reported the correlation between level of SDM and outcomes. Components of SDM specified in each study differed widely, but the component most frequently included was presenting information on the risks/benefits of treatment choices (five of seven studies). The outcome most frequently measured was communication, although with different measurement tools. Other outcomes included decisional conflict, trust, satisfaction, and “quality of dying.” Limitations: We could not analyze the strength of evidence for a given outcome due to heterogeneity in the outcomes reported and measurement tools. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence supporting SDM being associated with improved outcomes for EOL decisions as opposed to other forms of decision making. Future studies should describe which components of SDM are being tested, outline the comparator decision making style, and use validated tools to measure outcomes.

Recovery in Schizophrenia: What Consumers Know and Do Not Know

The recovery model has permeated mental health systems by leading to the development of new psychiatric interventions and services and the reconfiguration of traditional ones. There is growing evidence that these interventions and services confer benefits in clinical and recovery-oriented outcomes. Despite the seeming adoption of recovery by policy makers, the transformation of mental health systems into recovery-oriented systems has been fraught with challenges.

Decisional conflict in patients considering diagnostic thyroidectomy with indeterminate fine needle aspirate cytopathology

BACKGROUND

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytopathology is the gold standard work-up for thyroid nodules. However, indeterminate lesions are encountered commonly and can lead to difficult treatment decisions. We sought to determine whether patients experienced decisional conflict surrounding management with diagnostic thyroidectomy in the setting of indeterminate FNA results.

METHODS

Patients with indeterminate results of thyroid nodule FNA were prospectively enrolled. All consultations were carried out by three otolaryngologists in a consistent manner. After consultation, participants completed a demographics form and the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) questionnaire.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (28 female) between the ages of 30 and 88 years (mean age 54.89) participated. The median total DCS score was 10.94 (interquartile range, 4.69-25.0). Twelve patients (34%) scored at or above 25 on the DCS, indicating clinically significant level of decisional conflict. Patients reported feeling significantly more confident about their decision after the surgical consultation compared to before the consultation (p = 0.00). The total DCS score was significantly negatively correlated with self-reported confidence after the consultation (r = -0.421, p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Many patients experienced clinically significant decisional conflict when considering thyroidectomy for management of a thyroid nodule with indeterminate cytopathology. Future research should be directed at developing decision support tools for this patient group, and exploring the impact of decisional conflict on health outcomes.

Integrating Client and Clinician Perspectives on Psychotropic Medication Decisions: Developing a Communication-Centered Epistemic Model of Shared Decision Making for Mental Health Contexts

Shared decision making (SDM) interventions aim to improve client autonomy, information sharing, and collaborative decision making, yet implementation of these interventions has been variably perceived. Using interviews and focus groups with clients and clinicians from mental health clinics, we explored experiences with and perceptions about decision support strategies aimed to promote SDM around psychotropic medication treatment. Using thematic analysis, we identified themes regarding beliefs about participant involvement, information management, and participants' broader understanding of their epistemic expertise. Clients and clinicians highly valued client-centered priorities such as autonomy and empowerment when making decisions. However, two frequently discussed themes revealed complex beliefs about what that involvement should look like in practice: (a) the role of communication and information exchange and (b) the value and stability of clinician and client epistemic expertise. Complex beliefs regarding these two themes suggested a dynamic and reflexive approach to information management. Situating these findings within the Theory of Motivated Information Management, we discuss implications for conceptualizing SDM in mental health services and adapt Siminoff and Step's Communication Model of Shared Decision Making (CMSDM) to propose a Communication-centered Epistemic Model of Shared Decision Making (CEM-SDM).

Décision médicale partagée en psychiatrie : intérêt des méthodologies mixtes et qualitatives

La décision médicale partagée (DMP) s’impose depuis environ dix ans dans les publications en santé mentale. Si ce concept est présenté comme un impératif éthique aux États-Unis par certains praticiens pionniers des pratiques orientés vers le rétablissement, sa mise en œuvre continue néanmoins à susciter nombre d’interrogations. La DMP constitue en effet un bouleversement de la relation médecin–malade, dans la mesure où elle donne une place équivalente aux informations apportées par le patient et à celles apportées par le médecin. Ceci est d’autant plus fort en psychiatrie, où les pathologies traitées sont traditionnellement associées à une altération de la capacité de jugement. Sa mise en place impose donc une révision de la position du praticien et une prise de distance par rapport à son propre savoir. Une revue de la littérature à propos de la décision médicale partagée en santé mentale permet de cerner l’ensemble des questions posées par l’émergence de ce concept. Deux types de méthodologies sont utilisées, qualitatives et quantitatives. Les principaux champs d’études abordés sont :

L’ensemble de ces études révèlent la différence de perception entre médecin et malade en termes de perception de l’élaboration des décisions, et également le souhait, pour beaucoup de patients d’être impliqués dans les décisions les concernant. Toutefois, ce souhait est inégalement réparti, et un certain nombre de patient ne souhaite pas être associé aux décisions prises. Savoir s’adresser à chacun en fonction de son souhait constitue ainsi une étape incontournable de la mise en place de la décision médicale partagée, et savoir quoi faire des patients ne souhaitant pas une participation active constitue ainsi l’un des enjeux de sa mise en place.

Justifying medication decisions in mental health care: Psychiatrists' accounts for treatment recommendations

Psychiatric practitioners are currently encouraged to adopt a patient centered approach that emphasizes the sharing of decisions with their clients, yet recent research suggests that fully collaborative decision making is rarely actualized in practice. This paper uses the methodology of Conversation Analysis to examine how psychiatrists justify their psychiatric treatment recommendations to clients. The analysis is based on audio-recordings of interactions between clients with severe mental illnesses (such as, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, etc.) in a long-term, outpatient intensive community treatment program and their psychiatrist. Our focus is on how practitioners design their accounts (or rationales) for recommending for or against changes in medication type and dosage and the interactional deployment of these accounts. We find that psychiatrists use two different types of accounts: they tailor their recommendations to the clients' concerns and needs (client-attentive accounts) and ground their recommendations in their professional expertise (authority-based accounts). Even though psychiatrists have the institutional mandate to prescribe medications, we show how the use of accounts displays psychiatrists' orientation to building consensus with clients in achieving medical decisions by balancing medical authority with the sensitivity to the treatment relationship.

A novel approach to patient self-monitoring of sonographic examinations using a head-mounted display

OBJECTIVES

Patients' use of a head-mounted display during their sonographic examinations could provide them with information about their diseases in real time and might help improve "patient-centered care." We conducted this prospective study to evaluate the feasibility of a modern head-mounted display for patient self-monitoring of sonographic examinations.

METHODS

In November and December 2013, 58 patients were enrolled. Patients wore a head-mounted display (HMZ-T2; Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) during their sonographic examinations and watched their own images in real time. After the sonographic examinations, the patients completed a questionnaire, in which they evaluated the utility of the head-mounted display, their understanding of their diseases, their satisfaction with using the head-mounted display, and any adverse events. Until November 26, 2013, patients' names were requested on the questionnaire; after that date, the questionnaire was changed to be anonymous.

RESULTS

Of the 58 patients, 56 (97%) elected to participate in this study. The head-mounted display was reported to have good image quality by 42 patients (75%) and good wearability by 39 (70%). Thirty-six patients (64%) reported they had deepened their understanding of their diseases. There were no major complications, and only 2 patients (4%) had mild eye fatigue. There was no significant association between questionnaire results and patient characteristics. None of the questionnaire results changed significantly after the questionnaire was made anonymous.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a modern head-mounted display by patients during sonographic examinations provided good image quality with acceptable wearability. It could deepen their understanding of their diseases and help develop patient-centered care.

"Walking alongside:" collaborative practices in mental health and substance use care

Background

Although the importance of collaboration is well established as a principle in research and in theory, what it actually means for practitioners to collaborate in practice, to be partners in a collaborative relationship, has thus far been given less attention. The aim of this study was to identify key characteristics of the ways in which mental health practitioners collaborate with service users and their families in practice.

Methods

This was a qualitative action research study, with a cooperative inquiry approach that used multi-staged focus group discussions with ten mental health care and social work practitioners in community mental health and substance use care. Thematic analysis was applied to identify common characteristics.

Results

We identified three major themes related to practitioners’ experiences of collaborative practices: (1) walking alongside through negotiated dialogues, (2) maintaining human relationships, and (3) maneuvering relationships and services.

Conclusions

It appears that even with the rich knowledgebase that has developed on the merits of collaborative relationships, it continues to be challenging for practitioners to reorient their practice accordingly. The findings of this study indicate that the practitioners focus on two types of processes as characterizing collaborative practice: one focusing on conversations among practitioners and service users and their families and the other focusing on management and control among health care providers, service sectors, and service users (i.e., inter/intra-system collaboration).

Facilitators and barriers in dual recovery: a literature review of first-person perspectives

Purpose

– The co-occurrence of mental health and substance use problems is prevalent, and has been problematic both in terms of its complexity for the person and of the challenges it poses to health care practitioners. Recovery in co-occurring mental health and substance use problems is viewed as with multiple challenges embedded in it. As most of the existing literature on recovery tends to treat recovery in mental health and substance use problems separately, it is critical to assess the nature of our current understanding of what has been described as “complex” or “dual” recovery. The purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss what persons with co-occurring mental health and substance use problems describe as facilitators and barriers in their recovery process as revealed in the literature.

Design/methodology/approach

– The method used for this study was a small-scale review of the literature gleaned from a wider general view. Searches were conducted in CINAHL, Psych info, Medline, Embase, SweMed+, and NORART.

Findings

– Three overarching themes were identified as facilitators of dual recovery: first, meaningful everyday life; second, focus on strengths and future orientation; and third, re-establishing a social life and supportive relationships. Two overarching themes were identified as barriers to dual recovery: first, lack of tailored help and second, complex systems and uncoordinated services.

Originality/value

– The recovery literature mostly focuses on recovery in mental health and substance use problems separately, with less attention being paid in the first-person literature to what helps and what hinders dual recovery.

Live liver donors' risk thresholds: risking a life to save a life

BACKGROUND

There is still some controversy regarding the ethical issues involved in live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and there is uncertainty on the range of perioperative morbidity and mortality risks that donors will consider acceptable.

METHODS

This study analysed donors' inclinations towards LDLT using decision analysis techniques based on the probability trade-off (PTO) method. Adult individuals with an emotional or biological relationship with a patient affected by end-stage liver disease were enrolled. Of 122 potential candidates, 100 were included in this study.

RESULTS

The vast majority of participants (93%) supported LDLT. The most important factor influencing participants' decisions was their wish to improve the recipient's chance of living a longer life. Participants chose to become donors if the recipient was required to wait longer than a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of 6 ± 5 months for a cadaveric graft, if the mean ± SD probability of survival was at least 46 ± 30% at 1 month and at least 36 ± 29% at 1 year, and if the recipient's life could be prolonged for a mean ± SD of at least 11 ± 22 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential donors were risk takers and were willing to donate when given the opportunity. They accepted significant risks, especially if they had a close emotional relationship with the recipient.

Trends and perspectives of shared decision-making in schizophrenia and related disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a model of how doctors and patients make medical decisions, which is seen as very applicable to mental health. This review addresses the following issues: Do patients and professionals see the need for SDM? Does SDM actually take place for patients with schizophrenia? What are facilitators and barriers of SDM in schizophrenia treatment? What are the outcomes of SDM?

RECENT FINDINGS

Publications in the last 18 months showed the following: Both patients and providers acknowledge the desirability of SDM. SDM occurs less often in mental health than desired by patients and less frequently compared with general practice. SDM in mental health is complex, takes time and involves more than just two participants; patients' lack of decisional capacity is seen as the major barrier. There are only a few interventional studies measuring the outcome of SDM; existing research constantly shows positive, but small effects.

SUMMARY

SDM is highly accepted and wanted in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders, but more research is needed regarding how SDM can be implemented in regular care. Healthcare professionals need more training in how to deal with difficult decisional situations.

Effects of a question prompt sheet on active patient behaviour: a randomized controlled trial with depressed outpatients

BACKGROUND

A deeper engagement into medical decision-making is demanded by treatment guidelines for patients with affective disorders. There is to date little evidence on what facilitates active behaviour of patients with depression. In general medicine 'question prompt sheets' (QPSs) have been shown to change patients' behaviour in the consultation and improve treatment satisfaction but there is no evidence for such interventions for mental health settings.

AIMS

To study the effects of a QPS on active patient behaviour in the consultation.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial (involving N = 100 outpatients with depression) evaluating the effects of a QPS on patients' behaviour in the consultation.

RESULTS

The QPS showed no influence on the number of topics raised by patients (p = .13) nor on the external rater's perception of 'Who made the decisions in today's consultation?' (p = .50).

CONCLUSIONS

A QPS did not change depressed patients' behaviour in the consultation. More complex interventions might be needed to change depressed patients' behaviour within an established doctor-patient dyad. Patient seminars addressing behavioural aspects have been shown to be effective in other settings and may also be feasible for outpatients with affective disorders.

A web-based tool to support shared decision making for people with a psychotic disorder: randomized controlled trial and process evaluation

Background

Mental health policy makers encourage the development of electronic decision aids to increase patient participation in medical decision making. Evidence is needed to determine whether these decision aids are helpful in clinical practice and whether they lead to increased patient involvement and better outcomes.

Objective

This study reports the outcome of a randomized controlled trial and process evaluation of a Web-based intervention to facilitate shared decision making for people with psychotic disorders.

Methods

The study was carried out in a Dutch mental health institution. Patients were recruited from 2 outpatient teams for patients with psychosis (N=250). Patients in the intervention condition (n=124) were provided an account to access a Web-based information and decision tool aimed to support patients in acquiring an overview of their needs and appropriate treatment options provided by their mental health care organization. Patients were given the opportunity to use the Web-based tool either on their own (at their home computer or at a computer of the service) or with the support of an assistant. Patients in the control group received care as usual (n=126). Half of the patients in the sample were patients experiencing a first episode of psychosis; the other half were patients with a chronic psychosis. Primary outcome was patient-perceived involvement in medical decision making, measured with the Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication and Treatment Decision-making Effectiveness (COMRADE). Process evaluation consisted of questionnaire-based surveys, open interviews, and researcher observation.

Results

In all, 73 patients completed the follow-up measurement and were included in the final analysis (response rate 29.2%). More than one-third (48/124, 38.7%) of the patients who were provided access to the Web-based decision aid used it, and most used its full functionality. No differences were found between the intervention and control conditions on perceived involvement in medical decision making (COMRADE satisfaction with communication: F_1,68=0.422, P=.52; COMRADE confidence in decision: F_1,67=0.086, P=.77). In addition, results of the process evaluation suggest that the intervention did not optimally fit in with routine practice of the participating teams.

Conclusions

The development of electronic decision aids to facilitate shared medical decision making is encouraged and many people with a psychotic disorder can work with them. This holds for both first-episode patients and long-term care patients, although the latter group might need more assistance. However, results of this paper could not support the assumption that the use of electronic decision aids increases patient involvement in medical decision making. This may be because of weak implementation of the study protocol and a low response rate.

Trial Registration

Dutch Trial Register (NTR) trial number: 10340; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctsearch.asp?Term=10340 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Jj5umAeS).

Examining the Relationship between Choice, Therapeutic Alliance and Outcomes in Mental Health Services

BACKGROUND

Self-determination within mental health services is increasingly recognized as an ethical imperative, but we still know little about the impact of choice on outcomes among people with severe mental illnesses. This study examines whether choice predicts outcomes and whether this relationship is mediated by therapeutic alliance.

METHOD

The study sample of 396 participants completed a survey measuring choice, therapeutic alliance, recovery, quality of life and functioning. Multivariate analyses examined choice as a predictor of outcomes, and Sobel tests assessed alliance as a mediator.

RESULTS

Choice variables predicted recovery, quality of life and perceived outcomes. Sobel tests indicated that the relationship between choice and outcome variables was mediated by therapeutic alliance.

IMPLICATIONS

The study demonstrates that providing more choice and opportunities for collaboration within services does improve consumer outcomes. The results also show that collaboration is dependent on the quality of the relationship between the provider and consumer.

Implementing clinical practice guidelines about health promotion and disease prevention through shared decision making

Clinical practice guidelines aim to improve the health of patients by guiding individual care in clinical settings. Many guidelines specifically about health promotion or primary disease prevention are beginning to support informed patient choice, and suggest that clinicians and patients engage in shared discussions to determine how best to tailor guidelines to individuals. However, guidelines generally do not address how to translate evidence from the population to the individual in clinical practice, or how to engage patients in these discussions. In addition, they often fail to reconcile patients' preferences and social norms with best evidence. Shared decision making (SDM) is one solution to bridge guidelines about health promotion and disease prevention with clinical practice. SDM describes a collaborative process between patients and their clinicians to reach agreement about a health decision involving multiple medically appropriate treatment options. This paper discusses: 1) a brief overview of SDM; 2) the potential role of SDM in facilitating the implementation of prevention-focused practice guidelines for both preference-sensitive and effective care decisions; and 3) avenues for future empirical research to test how best to engage individual patients and clinicians in these complex discussions about prevention guidelines. We suggest that SDM can provide a structure for clinicians to discuss clinical practice guidelines with patients in a way that is evidence-based, patient-centered, and incorporates patients' preferences. In addition to providing a model for communicating about uncertainty at the individual level, SDM can provide a platform for engaging patients in a conversation. This process can help manage patients' and clinicians' expectations about health behaviors. SDM can be used even in situations with strong evidence for benefits at the level of the population, by helping patients and clinicians prioritize behaviors during time-pressured medical encounters. Involving patients in discussions could lead to improved health through better adherence to chosen options, reduced practice variation about preference-sensitive options, and improved care more broadly. However, more research is needed to determine the impact of this approach on outcomes such as morbidity and mortality.

Re-thinking shared decision-making: context matters

OBJECTIVE

Traditional perspectives on shared decision-making (SDM) focus attention on the point in a clinical encounter where discussion of a treatment decision begins. We argue that SDM is shaped not only by initiation of a treatment decision, but also by the entire clinical encounter, and, even more broadly, by the nature of the patient-provider relationship.

METHOD

The four habits approach to effective clinical communication, a validated and widely used framework for patient-provider communication, was used to understand how SDM is integrally tied to the entire clinical encounter, as well as to the broader patient-provider relationship.

RESULTS

The Four Habits consists of four categories of behaviors: (1) invest in the beginning; (2) elicit the patient's perspective; (3) demonstrate empathy; and (4) invest in the end. We argue that the behaviors included in all four of these categories work together to create and maintain an environment conducive to SDM.

CONCLUSION

SDM cannot be understood in isolation, and future SDM research should reflect the influence that the broader communicative and relational contexts have on decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

SDM training might be more effective if training focused on the broader context of communication and relationships, such as those specified by the Four Habits framework.

Levels of patient activation among adults with schizophrenia: associations with hope, symptoms, medication adherence, and recovery attitudes

Patient activation, defined as one's attitudes and confidence toward managing illness, has been not been thoroughly studied in consumers with schizophrenia. The current study sought to understand the relationship between patient activation and symptoms, medication adherence, recovery attitudes, and hope in a sample of 119 adults with schizophrenia. The participants were enrolled in an 18-month randomized controlled study of the Illness Management and Recovery program. Data were collected at baseline; correlations and stepwise multiple regressions were used to examine the relationships and determine the unique contribution of variables. Higher patient activation was most strongly associated with positive recovery attitudes, higher levels of hope, and fewer emotional discomfort symptoms. Patient activation was significantly related to a broad measure of illness self-management, providing evidence for the construct validity of the patient activation measure. Our findings emphasize the importance of recovery-based mental health services that recognize level of patient activation as a potential factor in consumer outcomes.

Barriers to the participation of people with psychosocial disability in mental health policy development in South Africa: a qualitative study of perspectives of policy makers, professionals, religious leaders and academics

BACKGROUND

This paper outlines stakeholder views on environmental barriers that prevent people who live with psychosocial disability from participating in mental health policy development in South Africa.

METHOD

Fifty-six semi-structured interviews with national, provincial and local South African mental health stakeholders were conducted between August 2006 and August 2009. Respondents included public sector policy makers, professional regulatory council representatives, and representatives from non-profit organisations (NPOs), disabled people's organisations (DPOs), mental health interest groups, religious organisations, professional associations, universities and research institutions.

RESULTS

Respondents identified three main environmental barriers to participation in policy development: (a) stigmatization and low priority of mental health, (b) poverty, and (c) ineffective recovery and community supports.

CONCLUSION

A number of attitudes, practices and structures undermine the equal participation of South Africans with psychosocial disability in society. A human rights paradigm and multi-system approach is required to enable full social engagement by people with psychosocial disability, including their involvement in policy development.

Partnering with mental health providers: a guide for services researchers

BACKGROUND

There is a 20-year delay between the development of effective interventions for individuals with severe mental illness and widespread adoption in public mental health care settings. Academic-provider collaborations can shorten this gap, but establishing and maintaining partnerships entail significant challenges.

AIMS

This paper identifies potential barriers to academic-provider research collaborations and provides guidelines to overcome these obstacles.

METHOD

Authors from an academic institution and community mental health organization outline the components of their long-standing partnership, and discuss the lessons learned that were instrumental in establishing the collaborative model. Results Realistic resource allocation and training, a thorough understanding of the service model and consumer characteristics, systemic and bidirectional communication and concrete plans for post-project continuation are necessary at all project phases.

CONCLUSIONS

A shared decision-making framework is essential for effective academic institution and community mental health agency collaborations and can facilitate long-term sustainability of novel interventions.

Development and psychometric properties of a five-language multiperspective instrument to assess clinical decision making style in the treatment of people with severe mental illness (CDMS)

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate psychometric properties of the Clinical Decision Making Style (CDMS) scale which measures general preferences for decision making as well as preferences regarding the provision of information to the patient from the perspectives of people with severe mental illness and staff.

METHODS

A participatory approach was chosen for instrument development which followed 10 sequential steps proposed in a current guideline of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation of measures. Following item analysis, reliability, validity, and long-term stability of the CDMS were examined using Spearman correlations in a sample of 588 people with severe mental illness and 213 mental health professionals in 6 European countries (Germany, UK, Italy, Denmark, Hungary, and Switzerland).

RESULTS

In both patient and staff versions, the two CDMS subscales "Participation in Decision Making" and "Information" reliably measure distinct characteristics of decision making. Validity could be demonstrated to some extent, but needs further investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

Together with two other five-language patient- and staff-rated measures developed in the CEDAR study (ISRCTN75841675) - "Clinical Decision Making in Routine Care" and "Clinical Decision Making Involvement and Satisfaction" - the CDMS allows empirical investigation of the complex relation between clinical decision making and outcome in the treatment of people with severe mental illness across Europe.

Supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence is low

There is growing interest in shared decision making (SDM) in the United States and globally, at both the clinical and policy levels. SDM is typically employed during "preference-sensitive" decisions, where there is equipoise between treatment options with equal or similar outcomes from a medical standpoint. In these situations, patients' preferences for the possible risks, benefits, and trade-offs between options are central to the decision. However, SDM also may be appropriate in clinical situations besides those in which data demonstrate equipoise. In situations of low evidence, where evidence is conflicting, unavailable or not applicable to an individual patient, supporting SDM can present unique challenges, above and beyond the challenges faced during more standard preference-sensitive decisions. This article discusses challenges in supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence is low, describes strategies that can facilitate SDM despite low evidence, and suggests avenues for future research to explore further these proposed strategies.

Experiences of treatment decision making for young people diagnosed with depressive disorders: a qualitative study in primary care and specialist mental health settings

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines advocate for the inclusion of young people experiencing depression as well as their caregivers in making decisions about their treatment. Little is known, however, about the degree to which these groups are involved, and whether they want to be. This study sought to explore the experiences and desires of young people and their caregivers in relation to being involved in treatment decision making for depressive disorders.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with ten young people and five caregivers from one primary care and one specialist mental health service about their experiences and beliefs about treatment decision making. Interviews were audio taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Experiences of involvement for clients varied and were influenced by clients themselves, clinicians and service settings. For caregivers, experiences of involvement were more homogenous. Desire for involvement varied across clients, and within clients over time; however, most clients wanted to be involved at least some of the time. Both clients and caregivers identified barriers to involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports clinical guidelines that advocate for young people diagnosed with depressive disorders to be involved in treatment decision making. In order to maximise engagement, involvement in treatment decision making should be offered to all clients. Involvement should be negotiated explicitly and repeatedly, as desire for involvement may change over time. Caregiver involvement should be negotiated on an individual basis; however, all caregivers should be supported with information about mental disorders and treatment options.

Life and treatment goals of individuals hospitalized for first-episode nonaffective psychosis

First-episode psychosis typically emerges during late adolescence or young adulthood, interrupting achievement of crucial educational, occupational, and social milestones. Recovery-oriented approaches to treatment may be particularly applicable to this critical phase of the illness, but more research is needed on the life and treatment goals of individuals at this stage. Open-ended questions were used to elicit life and treatment goals from a sample of 100 people hospitalized for first-episode psychosis in an urban, public-sector setting in the southeastern United States. Employment, education, relationships, housing, health, and transportation were the most frequently stated life goals. When asked about treatment goals, participants' responses included wanting medication management, reducing troubling symptoms, a desire to simply be well, engaging in counseling, and attending to their physical health. In response to queries about specific services, most indicated a desire for both vocational and educational services, as well as assistance with symptoms and drug abuse. These findings are interpreted and discussed in light of emerging or recently advanced treatment paradigms-recovery and empowerment, shared decision-making, community and social reintegration, and phase-specific psychosocial treatment. Integration of these paradigms would likely promote recovery-oriented tailoring of early psychosocial interventions, such as supported employment and supported education, for first-episode psychosis.

Pushing the envelope: shared decision making in mental health

TOPIC

This article reviews the literature on shared decision making in health and mental health and discusses tools in general health that are proposed for adaptation and use in mental health.

PURPOSE

To offer findings from literature and a product development process to help inform/guide those who wish to create or implement materials for shared decision making in mental health.

SOURCES USED

Published literature and research on issues related to shared decision making in health and mental health, focus groups, and product testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Structured shared decision making in mental health shows promise in supporting service user involvement in critical decision making and provides a process to open all treatment and service decisions to informed and respectful dialogue.

A web application to support recovery and shared decision making in psychiatric medication clinics

TOPIC

Web-based technology and peer support can be paired to create an enhanced medication visit that supports shared decision making between psychiatrists and people with psychiatric disabilities.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to describe an intervention to support recovery and shared decision making in the psychiatric medication visit. We will describe the CommonGround web application and a new role for peer staff in the medication clinic. Additionally, we will describe early adopters, patterns of use and lessons learned.

SOURCES USED

Sources used include the application's database and observation of 8 sites using the web application with 4,783 users.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the constraints on the typical 15-minute medication consultation, it is possible to use technology and peer support to create an enhanced medication visit that supports shared decision making in the psychiatric medication visit.