Shared Decision Making and Peer Support: New Directions for Research and Practice

Exploring the Decision-Making Process for Electroconvulsive Therapy in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder and Their Relatives After Treatment

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making is used for reaching medical decisions, also in the management of major depressive disorder (MDD). Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment option for patients with severe MDD. However, the decision-making process, specifically the exchange of evidence-based information, for ECT may be hampered by the controversy and stigma surrounding ECT. We aim to explore the experiences of the decision-making process of patients and their relatives who have chosen to receive ECT in order to guide optimization of shared decision making in ECT.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with MDD patients and their relatives who had voluntarily received ECT between 2018-2023 at the Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands. The interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Meaning saturation occurred after 16 interviews. The following 3 major themes emerged: 1) information is key, 2) empowering the decision, and 3) lived experiences with ECT. Participants emphasized the importance of accessible information presented in a calm and stepwise manner. They also identified gaps in desired information, particularly regarding memory loss and difficulty in retaining the given information. Factors empowering the decision included support from family, healthcare professionals, peers, and desperation, while negative factors included stigma, negative images, lack of support, and fear. Lived experiences with ECT might influence a future decision. Positive experiences were improved attitudes, treatment effects, and empathic and involved professionals, while negative aspects included cognitive side effects and lack of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers insights into factors influencing the decision-making process in patients with MDD that received ECT. It shows possibilities for improving the decision-making process in clinical practice.

Patients' and health professionals' perspectives regarding shared decision making in the psychiatric inpatient setting - A multiple qualitative case study

Objective

Shared decision-making is one promising approach to promoting recovery and person-centred care but seems challenging for implementation in clinical practice. This study aimed to explore how patients and health professionals experience shared decision-making and its facilitators and barriers.

Methods

A multiple qualitative case study design was chosen, using a constant comparative method. Multiple data sources were used, including individual interviews, observation, document analysis and a focus group.

Results

Through first a within-case analysis and then second a cross-case analysis, four patient profiles and their potential for shared decision-making were constructed. The results indicate that in the daily routine of the psychiatric inpatient setting different forms of decision making are used, even though health professionals advocate shared decision-making as the favored approach. Patients also have varying expectations and perceptions regarding shared decision-making, which is reflected in the degree of their involvement.

Conclusion

Shared decision-making could be enhanced in the future by a more proactive communication style and the proactive provision of information on the part of health professionals, in order to enhance patient participation in decision-making.

Innovation

The study identified different forms of decision-making within the acute psychiatric inpatient setting, highlighting the gap between the advocated SDM approach and its practical implementation. This divergence is a key aspect, as it underlines the complexity of implementing SDM in real clinical settings.

Equal, equitable or exacerbating inequalities: patterns and predictors of social prescribing referrals in 160 128 UK patients

BACKGROUND

Social prescribing is growing rapidly globally as a way to tackle social determinants of health. However, whom it is reaching and how effectively it is being implemented remains unclear.

AIMS

To gain a comprehensive picture of social prescribing in the UK, from referral routes, reasons, to contacts with link workers and prescribed interventions.

METHOD

This study undertook the first analyses of a large database of administrative data from over 160 000 individuals referred to social prescribing across the UK. Data were analysed using descriptive analyses and regression modelling, including logistic regression for binary outcomes and negative binomial regression for count variables.

RESULTS

Mental health was the most common referral reason and mental health interventions were the most common interventions prescribed. Between 72% and 85% of social prescribing referrals were from medical routes (primary or secondary healthcare). Although these referrals demonstrated equality in reaching across sociodemographic groups, individuals from more deprived areas, younger adults, men, and ethnic minority groups were reached more equitably via non-medical routes (e.g. self-referral, school, charity). Despite 90% of referrals leading to contact with a link worker, only 38% resulted in any intervention being received. A shortage of provision of community activities - especially ones relevant to mental health, practical support and social relationships - was evident. There was also substantial heterogeneity in how social prescribing is implemented across UK nations.

CONCLUSIONS

Mental health is the leading reason for social prescribing referrals, demonstrating its relevance to psychiatrists. But there are inequalities in referrals. Non-medical referral routes could play an important role in addressing inequality in accessing social prescribing and therefore should be prioritised. Additionally, more financial and infrastructural resource and strategic planning are needed to address low intervention rates. Further investment into large-scale data platforms and staff training are needed to continue monitoring the development and distribution of social prescribing.

Analysis of factors that promote the participation of patients with chronic diseases in shared decision making on medication: a cross-sectional survey in Hubei Province, China

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) improves the health status of patients with chronic diseases, especially in the condition of poly-medicated patients. This study aims to find the factors associated with participation of patients with chronic diseases in SDM on medication.

METHODS

A total of 1,196 patients with chronic diseases were selected in Hubei Province of China using cluster sampling methods. The random forest method was applied to rank the importance of independent variables by Mean Decrease Gini and out-of- bag (OOB) curve. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore the independent variables' effect direction and relative hazard.

RESULTS

In this study, 5.18% of patients used patient-directed decision making (PDM, a decision-making model led by patients), 37.79% of patients used SDM (a collaborative decision-making model by patients and doctors), and 57.02% of patients used doctor-directed decision making (DDM, or paternalistic decision making, a decision-making model led by doctors). The random forest analysis demonstrated that the top 5 important factors were age, education, exercise, disease course, and medication knowledge. The OOB curve showed that the error rate reached minimum when top 5 variables in importance ranking composed an optimal variable combination. In multivariate logistic regression, we chose SDM as a reference group, and identified medication knowledge (OR = 2.737, 95%CI = 1.524 ~ 4.916) as the influencing factor between PDM and SDM. Meanwhile, the influencing factors between DDM and SDM were age (OR = 0.636, 95%CI = 0.439 ~ 0.921), education (OR = 1.536, 95%CI = 1.122 ~ 2.103), exercise (OR = 1.443, 95%CI = 1.109 ~ 1.877), disease course (OR = 0.750, 95%CI = 0.584 ~ 0.964), and medication knowledge (OR = 1.446, 95%CI = 1.120 ~ 1.867).

CONCLUSION

Most Chinese patients with chronic diseases used DDM during their medication decision-making, and some patients used PDM and SDM. The participation in SDM should be taken seriously among elderly patients with lower education levels. The SDM promotion should focus on transformation of patients' traditional perception and enhance their medication knowledge.

Promoting Social Prescribing in Psychiatry-Using Shared Decision-Making and Peer Support

This Viewpoint discusses shared decision-making and peer support to promote prescription of nonclinical services based on patients’ preferences, goals, and needs as well as locally available services.

Trends, challenges, and priorities for shared decision making in mental health: The first umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model promoting patient-centered care that has not been routinely utilized in mental health. Inconsistent definitions, models, measurement tools, and lack of sufficient evidence for the effectiveness of SDM interventions are potential contributors to the limited use of SDM in mental health.

AIMS

(1) Provide the first systematic analysis of global development trends and challenges of SDM research; (2) clarify the meaning, role, and measurement of SDM in mental health; (3) create a theoretical framework for key effective SDM components to guide future development and implementation of SDM interventions.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was conducted in CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo. Included reviews focused on SDM interventions for prevention and/or treatment of mental illness in adults. A narrative synthesis was performed to capture the range of interventions, populations, measurement tools, comparisons, and outcomes.

RESULTS

10 systematic reviews of SDM in mental health were included with 100 nested studies spanning from 2006 to 2020. All reviews focused on dyadic and psychopharmacological decision-making. Primary outcomes of SDM in mental health interventions include treatment satisfaction, medication adherence, symptom severity, quality of life, and hospital readmissions. Participant-related factors unique to SDM in mental health, such as stigma and mental capacity, were not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The current landscape of SDM in mental health is overwhelmingly disconnected from the needs and experiences of potential end-users; clients, clinicians, and family members. Most SDM interventions and tools were adapted from physical health and are mainly geared to psychopharmacological decision-making. The SDM in Mental Health Framework (SDM-MH), developed here, expands the scope of decisions to non-psychopharmacological discussions, diversifies the pool of SDM participants and settings, and offers potential primary target outcomes of SDM in mental health to reduce heterogeneity across studies.

Peer support and shared decision making in Open Dialogue: Opportunities and recommendations

Open dialogue (OD) is a person-centred social network model of crisis and continuing mental healthcare, which promotes agency and long-term recovery in mental illness. Peer support workers who have lived experience of mental illness play a key role in OD in the UK, as they enhance shared understanding of mental health crisis as part of the OD model and provide a sense of belonging and social inclusion. These elements are in alignment with the shared decision making (SDM) approach in mental health, which focuses on person-centred communication in treatment decision-making. The previously documented benefits of peer-led SDM include increased engagement with services, symptom reduction, increased employment opportunities, and reduced utilization of mental and general health services. While the contribution of peer support and SDM principles to OD has been acknowledged, there is only a small body of literature surrounding this development, and little guidance on how peer support can enhance treatment decision-making and other aspects of OD. This viewpoint, which was co-authored by people with lived experience of mental illness, clinicians, and researchers, discusses practical implications and recommendations for research and training for the provision of a co-produced OD model grounded in peer support and SDM.