Shared decision making PLUS - a cluster-randomized trial with inpatients suffering from schizophrenia (SDM-PLUS)

Educating for supported decision making and shared decision making: a scoping review of educational design and outcomes for education and training interventions

PURPOSE

To characterise existing knowledge about the design and learning outcomes of education and training programs for supported or shared decision making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review was performed to identify academic and grey literature, published between January 2006 and February 2022, that reported on the design and/or learning outcomes of supported or shared decision making education or training programs. Eligible literature was mapped across domains of educational design and Kirkpatrick's hierarchy of learning effectiveness, and then qualitatively synthesised using cross-case analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 33 articles were identified (n = 7 for supported decision making and n = 26 for shared decision making) that provided education or training to supporters of persons with mental illness or substance use disorders (n = 14), dementia or neurocognitive disorders (n = 6), cognitive disability (n = 5), mixed populations (n = 1), and those receiving end-of-life care (n = 7). In their design, most programs sought specific changes in practice (behaviour) via experiential learning. Reported educational outcomes also focused on supporter behaviour, with limited evidence for how changes in learner attitudes, skills, or knowledge might be contributing to changes in supporter behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

Future education and training would benefit from a closer engagement with theories of teaching and learning, particularly those oriented towards co-design.

Research Progress of Shared Decision-Making in Schizophrenia with Anxiety

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been practiced fairly frequently in general medicine, but less so in mental disorders, especially in closed psychiatric wards, and its positive predictor has recently been recognized in the field of mental health. Studies have shown that patients with severe mental disorders want a say in their care and their desire to participate in clinical decision-making is even higher than those treated by general medical services. This review aims to explore the research progress of SDM for patients with schizophrenia with anxiety in a collectivist culture (such as Chinese culture) and to provide a reference for the implementation of SDM in closed psychiatric wards.

Analysis and mapping the research landscape on patient-centred care in the context of chronic disease management

RATIONALE

Patient-centred care has emerged as a transformative approach in managing chronic diseases, aiming to actively involve patients in their healthcare decisions.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to analyse and map the research landscape on patient-centred care in the context of chronic disease management.

METHODS

This study used Scopus to retrieve the relevant articles. The analysis focused on the growth pattern, highly cited articles, randomised clinical trials, patients and providers perspectives, facilitators and barriers, frequent author keywords, emerging topics, and prolific countries and journals in the field.

RESULTS

In total, 926 research articles met the inclusion criteria. There was a notable increase in the number of publications over time. Cancer had the highest number of articles (n = 379, 40.9%), followed by diabetes mellitus, and mental health and psychiatric conditions. Studies on patient-centred care in diabetic patients received the highest number of citations. The results identified 52 randomised controlled trials that covered four major themes: patient-centred care for diabetes management, shared decision-making in mental health and primary care, shared decision-making in cancer care, and economic evaluation and cost-effectiveness. The study identified 51 studies that examined the impact of tools such as computer-based systems, decision aids, smartphone apps, and online tools to improve patient-centred outcomes. A map of author keywords showed that renal dialysis, HIV, and atrial fibrillation were the most recent topics in the field. Researchers from the United States contributed to more than half of the retrieved publications. The top active journals included "Patient Education and Counselling" and "Health Expectations".

CONCLUSION

This study provides valuable insights into the research landscape of patient-centred care within the context of chronic diseases. The current study provided a comprehensive overview of the research landscape on patient-centred care, which can empower patients by raising their awareness about clinical experiences and outcomes.

Shifting Perspectives on the Challenges of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Care

Although shared decision making (SDM) has become the most preferable way in doctor-patient communication, it is not fully implemented in mental health care likely due to the complex nature of psychiatric syndromes and treatments. In this review we provide a systematic overview of all perceived and reported barriers to SDM in the literature, acknowledging field-specific challenges, and offering perspectives to promote its wider use. We conducted a systematic search of the wider literature in different databases and included all publications mentioning specified barriers to SDM in psychiatric care. Relevant data and opinions were categorised into micro-, meso- and macro-level themes and put into clinical perspective. We derived 20 barriers to SDM from 100 studies and reports. Eight were on micro-level care delivery, seven involved meso-level issues, five concerned macro-level themes. The multitude of perceived and actual barriers to SDM underline the challenges its implementation poses in mental health care, some of which can be resolved while others are inherent to the nature of the care, with its long-term relationships, complex dynamics, and social consequences, all requiring a flexible approach. We present four perspectives to help change views on the potential of SDM in mental health care.

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.

Implementation of a shared decision-making training program for clinicians based on the major depressive disorder guidelines in Japan: A multi-center cluster randomized trial

Background

Although shared treatment decision-making with patients requires attention, it is not widely implemented, particularly in the field of psychiatry. The aim of this study was to assess whether a shared decision-making (SDM) training program for clinicians based on the major depressive disorder (MDD) guidelines improved the perceived involvement of the decision process for patients with MDD.

Methods

A multi-center cluster-randomized controlled intervention of a clinician training program based on the Japanese MDD guidelines using related decision aids compared to usual care was conducted among 56 clinicians from 23 institutions. A total of 124 patients with MDD were enrolled in this study. The primary outcomes were the scores of the Shared Decision Making-Questionnaire-9 (SDM-Q-9) and Decision Conflict Scale (DCS) after the first visit to the outpatient clinics. The secondary outcomes were patients' satisfaction, quality of life, trust in clinicians, and depressive symptoms. Additionally, we evaluated all the observed outcomes at the first and third months of follow-up.

Results

The scores of the SDM-Q-9 in the SDM training program group were significantly higher than those in the control group at the first visit. However, no significant difference in the DCS scores was found between the two groups. There was no intervention effect for secondary outcomes and the outcomes at the first- and third-month follow-up visits.

Conclusion

The clinician training program based on the Japanese MDD guidelines can be useful for implementation of SDM. Additional research is needed to confirm the efficacy of this SDM training program.

Clinical trial registration

[https://www.umin.ac.jp/], identifier [UMIN000034397].

Evidence-based Shared-Decision-Making Assistant (SDM-assistant) for choosing antipsychotics: protocol of a cluster-randomized trial in hospitalized patients with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Choosing an antipsychotic medication is an important medical decision in the treatment of schizophrenia. This decision requires risk-benefit assessments of antipsychotics, and thus, shared-decision making between physician and patients is strongly encouraged. Although the efficacy and side-effect profiles of antipsychotics are well-established, there is no clear framework for the communication of the evidence between physicians and patients. For this reason, we developed an evidence-based shared-decision making assistant (SDM-assistant) that presents high-quality evidence from network meta-analysis on the efficacy and side-effect profile of antipsychotics and can be used as a basis for shared-decision making between physicians and patients when selecting antipsychotic medications.

METHODS

The planned matched-pair cluster-randomised trial will be conducted in acute psychiatric wards (n = 14 wards planned) and will include adult inpatients with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders (N = 252 participants planned). On the intervention wards, patients and their treating physicians will use the SDM-assistant, whenever a decision on choosing an antipsychotic is warranted. On the control wards, antipsychotics will be chosen according to treatment-as-usual. The primary outcome will be patients' perceived involvement in the decision-making during the inpatient stay as measured with the SDM-Q-9. We will also assess therapeutic alliance, symptom severity, side-effects, treatment satisfaction, adherence, quality of life, functioning and rehospitalizations as secondary outcomes. Outcomes could be analysed at discharge and at follow-up after three months from discharge. The analysis will be conducted per-protocol using mixed-effects linear regression models for continuous outcomes and logistic regression models using generalised estimating equations for dichotomous outcomes. Barriers and facilitators in the implementation of the intervention will also be examined using a qualitative content analysis.

DISCUSSION

This is the first trial to examine a decision assistant specifically designed to facilitate shared-decision making for choosing antipsychotic medications, i.e., SDM-assistant, in acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia. If the intervention can be successfully implemented, SDM-assistant could advance evidence-based medicine in schizophrenia by putting medical evidence on antipsychotics into the context of patient preferences and values. This could subsequently lead to a higher involvement of the patients in decision-making and better therapy decisions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00027316 , registration date 26.01.2022).

Shared decision making in a semi-secluded chronic psychiatric ward: The reflective lifeworld experiences of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders and nursing staff

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) enhances recovery-oriented mental healthcare, but literature predominately focuses on doctor-patient collaboration leaving the role of mental health nurses (MHN's) underexposed.

AIM

This study describes the experiences of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder with SDM in a semi-secluded psychiatric facility, and the attitudes toward SDM by MHN's.

METHOD

A hermeneutic phenomenological design.

RESULTS

Seven patients and six MHN's were interviewed. Although MHNs were skeptical to utilize SDM, and patients often feel omitted, investing in inter-human contact increased the therapeutic alliance.

CONCLUSION

Tailored plan making and attainable goal setting, building trust, and providing hope are important incentives to enhance SDM.

Conceptual understanding and applicability of shared decision-making in psychiatric care: An integrative review

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Shared decision-making is a concept originating in the medical field, and it is ideally based on a trustful relationship between the patient and the health professionals involved. Shared decision-making shows potential to strengthen patient autonomy and encourages patients to become involved in decisions regarding their treatment. WHAT DOES THE PAPER ADD TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: A universal concept and understanding of shared decision-making with relevance specifically to psychiatric clinical practice could not be identified in the analysed literature. Shared decision-making refers to a process, and how and whether the patient wishes to participate in the decision-making process should be clarified from the very beginning. On the basis of this synthesizing review, a process model for psychiatric practice was specified and illustrated to help lead health professionals, patients and other supporters through the decision-making process. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: The process of shared decision-making should be made visible to all persons involved, and it should be stated at the beginning that a decision must be made. Decisions regarding treatment are usually not limited to a single consultation. A collaborative approach including multiple health professionals and other supporters, such as peer workers and family members, is required. Psychiatric nurses could support patients during the process of decision-making and provide additional information, if requested.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Patient involvement in decisions regarding treatment has increasingly been supported in health care, and therefore, shared decision-making (SDM), as an informative and participative approach, is promoted in the scientific literature.

AIM

To review the current state of research regarding the conceptual understanding and implementation of SDM in psychiatric clinical practice.

METHOD

An integrative review that included empirical, theoretical and conceptual research published between 1997 and 2019 was conducted. For this, five health-related databases were searched.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles were included in the synthesis. No universal conceptual understanding of SDM regarding psychiatric care could be identified, although several articles highlighted the link with other concepts, such as autonomy and patient-centeredness. Furthermore, four additional key themes with relevance for the successful implementation of SDM in clinical practice were determined.

DISCUSSION

SDM refers to a process and is usually not limited to a single consultation. SDM shows the potential to enhance patient-centred and recovery-oriented care. A collaborative approach including multiple health professionals, peer workers and family members is required.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The process of SDM should be made visible for all parties involved. Nurses in particular could play a key role by collecting information regarding patient's preferences and by providing support.

Patients' perspectives on three-monthly administration of antipsychotic treatment with paliperidone palmitate - a qualitative interview study

INTRODUCTION

Three-monthly dosage of paliperidone palmitate entails longer time to relapse after discontinuation, is similarly tolerable and safe compared to monthly injections of paliperidone palmitate and is beneficial for the caregivers. However, few studies have so far explored in depth the patients' experiences with paliperidone palmitate medication every three months, or with switching from monthly to three-monthly injections of paliperidone palmitate.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A qualitative study based on individual interviews with persons with schizophrenia who receive three-monthly paliperidone palmitate in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Data was analysed according to qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients, 16 men and 8 women, took part in individual interviews. The patients' mental health care professionals mainly recommended the switch to three-monthly paliperidone palmitate, and few or no disadvantages were described. According to the patients, three-monthly paliperidone palmitate had several advantages, such as less frequent injections, less administration and planning and less focus on the illness. In addition, the participants described feeling more stability, being more physically and socially active, and that improvement processes were supported. For some, the use involved practical and economic challenges, and some worried whether the medicine 'wore off' before the next injection. According to the patients, switching to three-monthly paliperidone palmitate did not influence the frequency or content of patients' interaction with health care professionals.

CONCLUSION

Switching from monthly to three-monthly injections with paliperidone palmitate seems to be experienced as advantageous for patients with schizophrenia.

Shared decision making, aggression, and coercion in inpatients with schizophrenia

Background

The present study aimed at answering three research questions: (a) Does shared decision making (SDM) yield similar effects for patients with involuntary admission or incidents of aggression compared to patients with voluntary admission or without incidents of aggression? (b) Does SDM reduce the number of patients with incidents of aggression and the use of coercive measures? (c) Does the use of coercion have a negative impact on patients’ perceived involvement in decision making?

Methods

We used data from the cluster-randomized SDM-PLUS trial in which patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in 12 acute psychiatric wards of 4 German psychiatric hospitals either received an SDM-intervention or treatment as usual. In addition, data on aggression and coercive measures were retrospectively obtained from patients’ records.

Results

The analysis included n = 305 inpatients. Patient aggression as well as coercive measures mostly took place in the first days of the inpatient stay and were seldom during the study phase of the SDM-PLUS trial.

Patients who had been admitted involuntarily or showed incidents of aggression profited similarly from the intervention with regard to perceived involvement, adherence, and treatment satisfaction compared to patients admitted voluntarily or without incidents of aggression. The intervention showed no effect on patient aggression and coercive measures. Having previously experienced coercive measures did not predict patients’ rating of perceived involvement.

Conclusion

Further research should focus on SDM-interventions taking place in the very first days of inpatients treatment and potential beneficial long effects of participatory approaches that may not be measurable during the current inpatient stay.

Implementing shared decision-making on acute psychiatric wards: a cluster-randomized trial with inpatients suffering from schizophrenia (SDM-PLUS)

AIMS

Although shared decision-making (SDM) has the potential to improve health outcomes, psychiatrists often exclude patients with more severe mental illnesses or more acute conditions from participation in treatment decisions. This study examines whether SDM is facilitated by an approach which is specifically adapted to the needs of acutely ill patients (SDM-PLUS).

METHODS

The study is a multi-centre, cluster-randomised, non-blinded, controlled trial of SDM-PLUS in 12 acute psychiatric wards of five psychiatric hospitals addressing inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. All patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were consecutively recruited for the trial at the time of their admission to the ward. Treatment teams of intervention wards were trained in the SDM-PLUS approach through participation in two half-day workshops. Patients on intervention wards received group training in SDM. Staff (and patients) of the control wards acted under 'treatment as usual' conditions. The primary outcome parameter was the patients' perceived involvement in decision-making at 3 weeks after study enrolment, analysed using a random-effects linear regression model.

RESULTS

In total, 161 participants each were recruited in the intervention and control group. SDM-PLUS led to higher perceived involvement in decision-making (primary outcome, analysed patients n = 257, mean group difference 16.5, 95% CI 9.0-24.0, p = 0.002, adjusted for baseline differences: β 17.3, 95% CI 10.8-23.6, p = 0.0004). In addition, intervention group patients exhibited better therapeutic alliance, treatment satisfaction and self-rated medication compliance during inpatient stay. There were, however, no significant improvements in adherence and rehospitalisation rates in the 6- and 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limitations in patient recruitment, the SDM-PLUS trial has shown that the adoption of behavioural approaches (e.g. motivational interviewing) for SDM may yield a successful application to mental health. The authors recommend strategies to ensure effects are not lost at the interface between in- and outpatient treatment.Trial registration: The trial was registered at Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS00010880).

Development of a contemporary evidence-based practice workshop for health professionals with a focus on pre-appraised evidence and shared decision-making: a before-after pilot study

Shared decision-making (SDM) has emerged as a key skill to assist clinicians in applying evidence-based practice (EBP). We aimed to develop and pilot a new approach to teaching EBP, which focuses on teaching knowledge and skills about SDM and pre-appraised evidence. We designed a half-day workshop, informed by an international consensus on EBP core competencies and invited practicing clinicians to participate. Skills in SDM and communicating evidence were assessed by audio-recording consultations between clinicians and standardised patients (immediately pre-workshop and post-workshop). These were rated by two independent assessors using the OPTION (Observing Patient Involvement, 0 to 100 points) and ACEPP (Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences, 0 to 5 points) tools. Participants also completed a feedback questionnaire (9 Likert scale and four open-ended questions). Fourteen clinicians participated. Skills in SDM and communicating research evidence improved from pre-workshop to post-workshop (mean increase in OPTION score=5.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 9.9; increase in ACEPP score=0.5, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.06). Participant feedback was positive, with most indicating 'agree' or 'strongly agree' to the questions. A contemporary approach to teaching clinicians EBP, with a focus on SDM and pre-appraised evidence, was feasible, perceived as useful, and showed modest improvements in skills. Results should be interpreted cautiously because of the small study size and pre-post design.

Determinants of Therapeutic Alliance With People With Psychotic Disorders: A Systematic Literature Review

Therapeutic alliance determines medical treatment adherence, the success of psychotherapy, and the effectiveness of care. This systematic review aims at better understanding its determinants. The electronic databases Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched, using combinations of terms relating to psychosis and therapeutic alliance. Studies were selected and data were extracted using a PRISMA statement. Forty-one studies were selected, including 20 cross-sectional studies, 10 cohort studies, five randomized controlled trials, four literature reviews, and two retrospective studies. The quality of therapeutic alliance correlates with clinical symptoms, insight, social and family support, the therapist's qualities, the availability of shared therapeutic decision making, and the types of hospitalization. Although current evidence needs to be completed with further studies, it is already clear that group and family psychoeducation, cognitive remediation, community-based psychiatric services, and shared therapeutic decision making are essential approaches in the management of patients with psychosis.

Pill or needle? Determinants of the preference for long-acting injection over oral treatment in people facing chronic illness

Although long-acting injection (LAI) is presented as first line treatment option for patients with psychosis, negative attitudes toward this galenic negatively impact the selection of this treatment option. However, these negative attitudes may not be confined to patients but also observed in the general population. A web-based study on 1807 participants was conducted during which participants imagined that they had a particular chronic illness based on clinical vignettes (mental illnesses: schizophrenia, depression; somatic illnesses: multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis). The frequency of relapse and the intensity of symptoms were experimentally manipulated in the vignettes. Participants rated their subjective distress associated with each vignette, their belief in the effectiveness of treatment, and their treatment preference regarding medication. We examined under which conditions LAI was preferred over pills. Statistical analyses were performed using Bayesian methods. Results showed that participants preferred LAI over pills in 40.5% to 50.8% of cases. LAI was more preferred for illnesses with low frequency of relapse, low subjective distress, and for somatic than for mental illnesses. The perceived advantage for LAI over pills and the belief about the better efficiency of LAI were the main factors that drove the preference for LAI. Keeping in mind some advantages of LAI, the public negative representations of injections might partially influence patients' prejudices against LAI. These attitudes should be named and discussed with the patients when LAI seems to represent a relevant therapeutic option.

Adherence to neuroleptic treatment in psychiatric practices: A retrospective study of 55 practices with more than 5000 bipolar and schizophrenic patients in Germany

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect that treating physicians have on the compliance of their psychiatric (schizophrenia (SP) and bipolar disorder (BP)) patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study was based on data from the Disease Analyzer database (IQVIA). It included 2870 SP and 2327 BD patients who had received at least two neuroleptic prescriptions from 55 psychiatric practices between January 2016 and December 2018. The average proportion of days covered (PDC) per patient was calculated. Patients were considered adherent if their PDC was greater than or equal to 80%. Practice adherence was considered high if at least 70% of patients in the practice of interest were adherent.

RESULTS

The mean PDC was 59.8% (SD: 13.9%) in SP and 65.0% (SD: 11.5%) in BD patients. The share of patients with an optimal PDC value (≥80%) differed considerably between practices (between 28% and 92% for SP and between 33% and 92% for BP). The prevalence of practices with high adherence was lower for schizophrenia than for bipolar disorder (21.9% versus 45.5%).

CONCLUSION

Psychiatrists play an important role in the compliance of SP and BP patients treated with neuroleptics.

Treating Schizophrenia: Open Conversations and Stronger Relationships Through Psychoeducation and Shared Decision-Making

Integrated pharmacological and psychosocial treatments, such as psychoeducation (PE) and shared decision-making (SDM), have been shown to significantly improve outcomes for people living with schizophrenia (PLWS). Underpinning the success of these interventions is a strong therapeutic relationship between PLWS, their carers, and their healthcare team. While many recognize the value of this relationship, implementation of the interventions necessary to facilitate its construction remain low. In this article, we identify the barriers to developing productive therapeutic relationships and explain how PE and SDM, taking into account cultural difference, can improve adherence to treatment, strengthen therapeutic relationships, and ultimately equip patients to achieve better functional outcomes.

Shared decision-making in outpatients with mental disorders: Patients´ preferences and associated factors

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Over the last years, traditional paternalistic model is being questioned. Shared Decision-Making (SDM) model has been proposed as a way to improve patient-physician interaction. Little is known to what extent people with severe mental illness want to be involved in decision-making process. This study evaluates their preferences about making clinical decisions and which variables influence these desires.

METHOD

One hundred seven patients with DSM diagnoses of bipolar disorder or schizophrenia and 100 Non Psychiatric Comparison (NPC) subjects recruited from mental health and primary care departments completed a self-reported questionnaire about preferences in decision-making process. Demographic and clinical information was obtained through review of available records and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS).

RESULTS

Patients and NPCs differed as regards their preferences about their participation in medical decisions. NPCs were 18 times more likely to prefer options about their treatment and 2 times more likely to prefer to take medical decisions by their own than psychiatric patients. The best predictors of the preference of a SDM model were a lower BPRS global score and the absence of previous compulsory admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychiatric patients more frequently preferred a passive role in the decision-making process. Interventions to promote SDM should be tailored to the values and needs of each patient because not everyone wants to participate to the same degree. We found several factors to take into account in patient engagement in SDM as these populations may be more vulnerable.

[Long-acting antipsychotics: The QAAPAPLE algorithm review]

BACKGROUND

Eight years ago, a committee of experts from 4 Quebec university psychiatry departments has provided the QAAPAPLE algorithm in order to guide clinicians in their use of long-acting antipsychotics (LAAP) for patients with psychotic disorders.

OBJECTIVE

Update the QAAPAPLE algorithm.

METHODS

Using a qualitative and selective literature review, the experts have focused on several aspects related to the use of LAAP and the relevance of modifying the algorithm: 1) new data on LAAP (including polypharmacy and co-prescription with clozapine, dose frequency/interval); 2) perception and attitude regarding algorithms and evidence; 3) difficulties in implementing algorithms; 4) polypharmacy involving LAAP and co-prescriptions with clozapine; 5) partner patients perspective on the algorithm.

RESULTS

Thirteen meta-analysis were published and completed observational studies (including those on national registries), confirming the LAAP benefits. Literature adds specifications about using some drug associations as well as dose frequency and interval. Therefore, scientific advances have been considered to modify the algorithm.

CONCLUSION

Interacting with Quebec psychiatrists, we have examined changes in prescription and literature to better understand the use of algorithm. The committee has updated the QAAPAPLE algorithm to guide clinicians in using LAAP along the path of patients with psychosis as early as the first episode and through different clinical settings (including treatment resistance) in order to have a more flexible and user-friendly treatment.

What can clinicians do to improve outcomes across psychiatric treatments: a conceptual review of non-specific components

AIMS

Psychiatric treatments have specific and non-specific components. The latter has been addressed in an extensive literature on the placebo-effect in pharmacology and on common factors in psychotherapy. In the practice of mental health care, pharmacological, psychotherapeutic and social treatments are combined in complex interventions. This paper aims to review non-specific components across diverse psychiatric treatments and consider implications for practice and research.

METHODS

We conducted a non-systematic review of non-specific components across psychiatric treatments, their impact on treatment processes and outcomes, and interventions to improve them.

RESULTS

The identified research is heterogeneous, both in design and quality. All non-specific components capture aspects of how clinicians communicate with patients. They are grouped into general verbal communication - focusing on initial contacts, empathy, clarity of communication, and detecting cues about unspoken concerns - non-verbal communication, the framing of treatments and decision-making. The evidence is stronger for the impact of these components on process measures - i.e. therapeutic relationship, treatment satisfaction and adherence than on clinical outcomes - i.e. symptoms and relapse. A small number of trials suggest that brief training courses and simple methods for structuring parts of clinical consultations can improve communication and subsequently clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodologically, rigorous research advancing current understandings of non-specific components may increase effectiveness across different treatments, potentially benefitting large numbers of patients. Brief training for clinicians and structuring clinical communication should be used more widely in practice.

Giving Patients Choices During Involuntary Admission: A New Intervention

Background: People who receive involuntary treatment are some of the most vulnerable in psychiatric services. They are more likely to have poorer social and clinical outcomes and to be disillusioned with and disengaged from care. Research indicates that patients' experience in the first week of involuntary treatment is a critical period: a better experience of care in the first week predicts better quality of life and reduced readmission 1 year later. Patients have identified involvement in clinical decisions as key to improving their experience of care. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention to facilitate involvement in decision making for involuntary inpatients called OPeNS (Options, Preferences, Negotiate, and Summarise). Methods: This was a mixed method study. The OPeNS intervention was developed based on previous research carried out by a multidisciplinary team. Clinicians were trained to deliver it to involuntary inpatients. Feasibility indices (rates of participation in the intervention and time required to deliver it) were collected. Patients (N = 14) and clinicians (N = 5) provided qualitative data on their experience of the intervention in semi-structured interviews which were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: The OPeNS intervention was found to be acceptable by both patients and clinicians and feasible to conduct within the first week of involuntary treatment. Patients' and clinicians' experiences of the intervention fall into two themes: 'Enabling a different dynamic' and 'Clashing with usual practices and priorities'. Conclusion: The OPeNS intervention provides a structure that can be used by clinicians across disciplines to facilitate involving involuntary patients in decision making. Although challenges related to changing usual practices were identified, the intervention was received positively and was feasible to conduct in the first week of involuntary treatment.

[Shared decision-making in acute psychiatric medicine : Contraindication or a challenge?]

BACKGROUND

The concept of shared decision-making (SDM) has existed since the 1990s in multiple fields of somatic medicine but has only been poorly applied in psychiatric clinical routine despite broad acceptance and promising outcomes in clinical studies on its positive effects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The concept itself and its practicability in mental health are carefully assessed and strategies for its future implementation in psychiatric medicine are presented in this article. Ongoing clinical studies probing some of those strategies are further outlined.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

On top of the ubiquitous shortage of time in clinical routine, psychiatrists report their concern about patients' limited abilities in sharing decisions and their own fear of potentially harmful decisions resulting from a shared process. Misinterpretation of shared decision-making restricting the health care professional to rather an informed choice scenario and their own adhesion to the traditional paternalistic decision-making approach further add to SDM's underutilization. Those hurdles could be overcome by communication skill workshops for all mental health care professionals, including nursing personnels, psychologists, social workers and physicians, as well as the use of decision aids and training courses for patients to motivate and empower them in sharing decisions with the medical staff. By this, the patient-centered treatment approach demanded by guidelines, carers and users could be further facilitated in psychiatric clinical routine.

Patient perceived participation in decision making on their antipsychotic treatment: Evidence of validity and reliability of the COMRADE scale in a sample of schizophrenia spectrum disorders

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to provide evidence of the validity and reliability of the COMRADE scale (Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision making Effectiveness) in patients suffering from schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

METHOD

150 patients recruited at five mental health centers were assessed using a cross-sectional study design. The COMRADE, WAIS-S (therapeutic alliance) and TSQM (satisfaction with medication) scales were used.

RESULTS

Exploratory Factor Analysis identified three factors from the COMRADE (F1: "Risk communication"; F2: "Confidence in decision" and F3: "Knowledge of decisional balance") which explain 45.2, 8.5 and 6% of the variance, respectively. Statistically significant correlations were observed between the scores of the COMRADE subscales with the subscales of the WAI-S and the TSQM. The internal consistency observed for each of the factorial scores of the COMRADE were (Cronbach's alpha values) 0.90, 0.89 and 0.74, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The COMRADE scale offers appropriate psychometric properties for its use as a measure of perceived patient involvement in the shared decision making process in antipsychotic treatment.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The use of the COMRADE measure in psychiatric clinical practice and in research studies provides an outcome measure of interventions from the shared decision making model.

Efficacy of shared decision-making on treatment adherence of patients with bipolar disorder: a cluster randomized trial (ShareD-BD)

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a model of interaction between doctors and patients in which both actors contribute to the medical decision-making process. SDM has raised great interest in mental healthcare over the last decade, as it is considered a fundamental part of patient-centered care. However, there is no research evaluating the efficacy of SDM compared to usual care (CAU), as it relates to quality of care and more specifically treatment adherence, in bipolar disorder (BD).

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a 12-month multi-centre, cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of SDM to CAU. Adult BD patients (n = 300) will be eligible after stabilization for at least 4 weeks following an acute mood episode. The intervention will consist of applying the standardized SDM process as developed by the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in order to choose the maintenance treatment of BD. A multidisciplinary team developed a decision aid "choose my long-term treatment with my doctor" for BD patients to clarify possible therapeutic options. Primary outcome will assess the patient's level of adherence (based on hetero-evaluation) of ongoing treatment at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will assess the difference between the 2 groups of patients in terms of adherence to maintenance drug therapy based on other measures (self-assessment scale and plasma levels of mood stabilizers). Additionally, other dimensions will be assessed: decisional conflict, satisfaction with care and involvement in decision making, beliefs about treatment, therapeutic relationship, knowledge about information for medical decision and clinical outcomes (depression, mania, functioning and quality of life). The primary endpoint will be analysed without adjustment by comparison of adherence scores between the two groups using Student t-tests or Mann-Whitney tests according to the variable distribution. A set of secondary analyses will be adjusted for covariates of clinical interest using generalized linear mixed regression models.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first study evaluating the effect of an SDM intervention on patient adherence in BD. This is also an innovative protocol because it proposes the development of an evidence-based tool that should help patients and clinicians to initiate discussions regarding the use of BD treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03245593 .