[Shared decision-making and individualized goal setting - a pilot trial using PRISM (Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure) in psychiatric inpatients]

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

Recognising ethnocultural diversity in chronic pain assessment: validation of the Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure (PRISM) for use with culturally diverse communities

BACKGROUND

A comprehensive and accurate assessment of pain is critical for successful pain management. However, there is a lack of reliable and valid assessment tools for exploring multidimensional aspects of the chronic pain experience in culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This study investigates the reliability and validity of the Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure + (PRISM+) for evaluating pain-related suffering and the sociocultural context of chronic pain within culturally and linguistically diverse patient cohorts.

METHOD

Three prospective validation studies are reported for three culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Two hundred and fifty-one patients with chronic pain who self-identified as Assyrian (n = 85), Arabic (n = 83) or Vietnamese (n = 83) completed a PRISM+ assessment, alongside a battery of standardised pain assessments. To evaluate construct validity, the position of the 'pain' disk placement was correlated with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS), and the Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36). For content validity, thematic analysis of patient narratives accompanying each disk placement was conducted. Test-retest reliability of repeated 'pain' and five additional disks (PRISM+) values was analysed using intra-class correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

The PRISM pain assessment demonstrated moderate to good test-retest reliability for Arabic (ICC 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.84), Assyrian (ICC 0.65; 95% CI 0.50-0.76) and Vietnamese (ICC 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.88) patients. Moderate correlations between the PRISM 'pain' disk and sub-scores for the BPI, DASS and SF-36 were found (p < 0.001). Patient interpretations of the 'pain' disk aligned with accepted definitions of suffering, supporting content validity for PRISM. For the additional disks (PRISM+), moderate to good test-retest reliability (ICC 0.67-0.88) was observed and qualitative analysis highlighted each disk reflected social and cultural values.

CONCLUSION

The PRISM demonstrates acceptable psychometric properties for measuring pain-related suffering for participants with chronic pain across three culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The use of additional disks (PRISM+) presents a reliable and valid option for exploring social and cultural dimensions of chronic pain in clinical encounters.

Disentangling self-management goal setting and action planning: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The ongoing rise in the numbers of chronically ill people necessitates efforts for effective self-management. Goal setting and action planning are frequently used, as they are thought to support patients in changing their behavior. However, it remains unclear how goal setting and action planning in the context of self-management are defined in the scientific literature. This study aimed to achieve a better understanding of the various definitions used.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted, searching PubMed, Cinahl, PsychINFO and Cochrane. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated to ensure the focus on goal setting/action planning and self-management. The literature was updated to December 2015; data selection and charting was done by two reviewers. A qualitative content analysis approach was used.

RESULTS

Out of 9115 retrieved articles, 58 met the inclusion criteria. We created an overview of goal setting phases that were applied (preparation, formulation of goals, formulation of action plan, coping planning and follow-up). Although the phases we found are in accordance with commonly known frameworks for goal setting, it was striking that the majority of studies (n = 39, 67%) did not include all phases. We also prepared an overview of components and strategies for each goal setting phase. Interestingly, few strategies were found for the communication between patients and professionals about goals/action plans. Most studies (n = 35, 60%) focused goal setting on one single disease and on a predefined lifestyle behavior; nearly half of the articles (n = 27, 47%) reported a theoretical framework.

DISCUSSION

The results might provide practical support for developers of interventions. Moreover, our results might encourage professionals to become more aware of the phases of the goal setting process and of strategies emphasizing on patient reflection. However, more research might be useful to examine strategies to facilitate communication about goals/action plans. It might also be worthwhile to develop and evaluate goal setting/action planning strategies for people with different and multiple chronic conditions.

Using the Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure (PRISM) to Quantify and Compare Suffering From Trauma and Addiction

OBJECTIVE

In a sample of people with substance use disorder who had experienced psychological trauma, this study aimed to quantify differences in perceived suffering due to addiction-related problems and to trauma-related problems.

METHODS

The sample comprised 146 inpatients with substance use disorder: 25% had posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 21% had subthreshold PTSD; and the remainder constituted the trauma-only group. PTSD, substance use disorder, and suffering were assessed using validated instruments. Suffering was measured using the Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure (PRISM).

RESULTS

No differences were found among the PTSD, subthreshold PTSD, and trauma-only group in the suffering attributed to addiction-related problems. Those in the PTSD group appraised their suffering due to trauma-related problems as greater than the other groups. In the PTSD group, but not the subthreshold PTSD group, suffering due to trauma-related problems was appraised as greater than that due to addiction-related problems.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to demonstrate quantitative comparisons between different health problems using the "common currency" of suffering. Our results indicate that even among those in an inpatient substance use disorder treatment program, comorbid PTSD may be more personally salient and cause greater suffering, with implications for therapeutic interventions available on substance use disorder treatment programs.

PRISM, a Novel Visual Metaphor Measuring Personally Salient Appraisals, Attitudes and Decision-Making: Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

Background

PRISM (the Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure) is a novel, simple visual instrument. Its utility was initially discovered serendipitously, but has been validated as a quantitative measure of suffering. Recently, new applications for different purposes, even in non-health settings, have encouraged further exploration of how PRISM works, and how it might be applied. This review will summarise the results to date from applications of PRISM and propose a generic conceptualisation of how PRISM works which is consistent with all these applications.

Methods

A systematic review, in the form of a qualitative evidence synthesis, was carried out of all available published data on PRISM.

Results

Fifty-two publications were identified, with a total of 8254 participants. Facilitated by simple instructions, PRISM has been used with patient groups in a variety of settings and cultures. As a measure of suffering, PRISM has, with few exceptions, behaved as expected according to Eric Cassell’s seminal conceptualisation of suffering. PRISM has also been used to assess beliefs about or attitudes to stressful working conditions, interpersonal relations, alcohol consumption, and suicide, amongst others.

Discussion

This review supports PRISM behaving as a visual metaphor of the relationship of objects (eg ‘my illness’) to a subject (eg ‘myself’) in a defined context (eg ‘my life at the moment’). As a visual metaphor, it is quick to complete and yields personally salient information. PRISM is likely to have wide applications in assessing beliefs, attitudes, and decision-making, because of its properties, and because it yields both quantitative and qualitative data. In medicine, it can serve as a generic patient-reported outcome measure. It can serve as a tool for representational guidance, can be applied to developing strategies visually, and is likely to have applications in coaching, psychological assessment and therapeutic interventions.

Graphic representation of the burden of suffering in dizziness patients

Background

Dizziness adversely affects an individual’s well-being. However, its impact is not only influenced by its physical manifestations, but also by its subjective importance to the patient. Appropriately assessing the subjective burden of dizziness is difficult. The Pictorial-Representation of Illness- and Self-Measure (PRISM), on which patients illustrate the distance between their ‘self’ and their illness, has been documented to indicate the perception of suffering in several different illnesses. Our study objectives were (1) to assess how useful the PRISM is in patients with dizziness; and (2) to determine which clinical, emotional and sociodemographic factors contribute to their burden of suffering.

Methods

A total of 177 outpatients with dizziness completed this cross-sectional study, in which the following measures were assessed of suffering rated using the PRISM tool; dizziness-related variables, like emotional distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression-Scale, HADS); self-perceived severity of dizziness (Dizziness Handicap Inventory, DHI); and sociodemographic variables.

Results

Regression analyses identified the strongest association between PRISM-rated suffering and DHI (p < 0.001), explaining 34% of the variance in PRISM-rated suffering. The HADS score and having continuous dizziness versus transient attacks each explained roughly 2% of the variance in suffering. No significant associations with PRISM-rated suffering were found for sociodemographic variables or other dizziness characteristics.

Conclusions

The PRISM is applicable to patients suffering from dizziness, demonstrating a significant association with the severity of dizziness and reliably distinguishing between those with low and high intensities of dizziness. The PRISM also reflects the multi-factorial aspects of suffering. Due to its immediate, timesaving and economical use, the PRISM could enable clinicians to identify vulnerable patients at risk for chronic symptoms and distress. Whether the PRISM can detect improvements and worsening of symptoms during treatment warrants further research.

Suffering assessment: a review of available instruments for use in palliative care

BACKGROUND

The prevention and relief of suffering in palliative care are critical to the well-being and quality of life of patients and families facing life-threatening diseases. Many tools to assess different issues in health care are available, but few are specifically designed to evaluate suffering, which is essential for its prevention, early management, and treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review was to identify and describe existing instruments developed to assess suffering in palliative care, as well as to comment on their psychometric properties.

METHODS

A review of articles indexed in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and SciELO up to June 2011 was conducted. All articles reporting the development, description, or psychometric properties of instruments that assess suffering were included. An assessment of their psychometric quality was performed following a structured checklist.

RESULTS

Ten instruments that assess suffering were identified. Their main features and psychometric properties are described in order to facilitate the selection of the appropriate one given each patient's context.

CONCLUSION

By taking into consideration all features of the assessment instruments under review, the evaluation of suffering can be made easier. A wide and ever expanding range of approaches is now available, which facilitates the selection of the suffering-assessment instrument that is best suited to the needs of the specific patient. One of the challenges ahead will be to further analyze the psychometric properties of some existing instruments.