Shared decision making in psychiatric practice and the primary care setting is unique, as measured using a 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9)

Patient leaflets on respiratory tract infections did not improve shared decision making and antibiotic prescriptions in a low-prescriber setting

Patient information leaflets can reduce antibiotic prescription rates by improving knowledge and encouraging shared decision making (SDM) in patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI). The effect of these interventions in antibiotic low-prescriber settings is unknown. We conducted a pragmatic pre-/post interventional study between October 2022 and March 2023 in Swiss outpatient care. The intervention was the provision of patient leaflets informing about RTIs and antibiotics use. Main outcomes were the extent of SDM, antibiotic prescription rates, and patients' awareness/knowledge about antibiotic use in RTIs. 408 patients participated in the pre-intervention period, and 315 patients in the post- intervention period. There was no difference in the extent of SDM (mean score (range 0-100): 65.86 vs. 64.65, p = 0.565), nor in antibiotic prescription rates (no prescription: 89.8% vs. 87.2%, p = 0.465) between the periods. Overall awareness/knowledge among patients with RTI was high and leaflets showed only a small effect on overall awareness/knowledge. In conclusion, in an antibiotic low-prescriber setting, patient information leaflets may improve knowledge, but may not affect treatment decisions nor antibiotic prescription rates for RTIs.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Shared decision making among hypertensive clients in public hospitals of West Shoa, central Ethiopia, 2020: Institution based cross sectional study

Background

Patient involvement in health care empowers patients to choose treatment and improves the quality of care and treatment outcomes. Despite its purpose, shared decision-making in clinical encounters was not given attention. So, this study aims to assess the level of shared decision-making among hypertensive patients.

Objective

To study the level of shared decision-making among hypertensive patients.

Method

The institution-based cross-sectional study method was used to collect data in three randomly selected public hospitals in the West Shoa Zone. A simple random sampling method was used for the selection of study participants. A pretested and structured shared decision-making questionnaire was used to measure patient engagement in decision-making. A descriptive analysis was done to determine the individual patient's level of involvement in shared decision-making. A 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to determine the level of shared decision-making.

Results

A total of 406 patients with hypertension participated in the study, yielding a response rate of 96.2%. Totally, 45.3% [CI (43.28-46.75)] of the participants have actively participated in shared decision-making. On the other hand, 53.6% [CI (49.42-56.7)] of participants reported they have been understood by their caregivers, and 52.9% [CI (46.2-58.9)] of the participants reported their caregiver helped them understand all the treatment options. On the other hand, only 121 patients, i.e., 34.7% [CI [28.86-37.8]] of the participants, have jointly chosen one type of treatment with their care provider.

Conclusion

The level of involvement in shared decision-making among hypertensive patients is low in the study area compared to the expected standard of shared decision-making. So enhanced patient involvement in health care decisions is important.

Prevalence and Correlates of Preference-Concordant Care Among Hospitalized People Receiving Maintenance Dialysis

Key Points

A large proportion of hospitalized patients receiving dialysis report not receiving preference-concordant care. Hospitalized patients on dialysis desiring a comfort-oriented medical plan were likely to report receiving preference-concordant care.

Background

Preference-concordant care is a cornerstone of high-quality medical decision-making, yet the prevalence and correlates of preference-concordant care have not been well-studied in patients receiving dialysis. We surveyed hospitalized people receiving maintenance dialysis to estimate the prevalence and correlates of preference-concordant care among this population.

Methods

We assessed preference concordance by asking participants (223/380, 59% response rate), “How strongly do you agree or disagree that your current treatment plan meets your preference?” We assessed treatment plan preference by asking whether patients preferred a plan that focused on (1 ) extending life or (2 ) relieving pain and discomfort. We assessed shared dialysis decision-making using the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire. We examined the differences between those reporting lack of preference-concordant care and those reporting receipt of preference-concordant care using chi-squared analyses. We also studied whether patients' treatment plan preferences or shared dialysis decision-making scores were correlated with their likelihood of receiving preference-concordant care.

Results

Of the 213 respondents who provided data on preference concordance, 90 (42.3%) reported that they were not receiving preference-concordant care. Patients who preferred pain and discomfort relief over life extension were less likely (odds ratio, 0.15 [95% confidence interval, 0.08 to 0.28] P = <0.0001) to report receiving preference-concordant care; patients with higher shared decision-making scores were more likely (odds ratio, 1.02 [95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.03], P = 0.02) to report preference-concordant care.

Conclusions

A substantial proportion of this sample of hospitalized people receiving maintenance dialysis reported not receiving preference-concordant care. Efforts to improve symptom management and enhance patient engagement in dialysis decision-making may improve the patients' perceptions of receiving preference-concordant care.

Drivers of shared decision making in inpatient psychiatry: An exploratory survey of patients' and multi-disciplinary team members' perspectives

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence and predictors of Shared Decision Making (SDM) in an adult, inpatient psychiatric setting.

METHOD

Multi-disciplinary clinician focus groups and patient pre-testing informed the development of a survey on 4 SDM and 11 factors hypothesized to interfere with SDM. The survey was administered to 89 adult inpatients (80% response rate) and their treatment team psychiatrists, nurses, and social workers (n = 338 ratings, 95% response rate). Group differences and predictors were estimated using t and F-tests.

RESULTS

Patients' mean SDM score (n = 64, standardized Cronbach alpha = 0.858) was 3.35 ± 1.13 (5 = highest agreement), and correlated with overall satisfaction with care (n = 61, r = 0.399, p = 0.001). Patients' disagreement with clinician's diagnosis (44% of patients) correlated with lower SDM ratings by patients (t = 2.55, df = 62, p = 0.013) and by clinicians (t = 2.99, df = 69, p = 0.004). Psychotic diagnoses were not a significant determining factor for SDM. Overall, clinicians rated SDM more favorably than patients (t = -5.43, df = 63, p < 0.001), with nurses and social workers rating SDM higher than physicians (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic agreement / disagreement is a key predictor of SDM for patients and clinicians, while presence of psychosis is not. SDM was rated higher by clinicians than patients. SDM ratings vary significantly between clinical disciplines.

How are patient-related characteristics associated with shared decision-making about treatment? A scoping review of quantitative studies

OBJECTIVES

To identify what patient-related characteristics have been reported to be associated with the occurrence of shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed articles in English or Dutch reporting on associations between patient-related characteristics and the occurrence of SDM for actual treatment decisions.

INFORMATION SOURCES

COCHRANE Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published until 25 March 2019.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5289 hits of which 53 were retained. Multiple categories of patient characteristics were identified: (1) sociodemographic characteristics (eg, gender), (2) general health and clinical characteristics (eg, symptom severity), (3) psychological characteristics and coping with illness (eg, self-efficacy) and (4) SDM style or preference. Many characteristics showed no association or unclear relationships with SDM occurrence. For example, for female gender positive, negative and, most frequently, non-significant associations were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

A large variety of patient-related characteristics have been studied, but for many the association with SDM occurrence remains unclear. The results will caution often-made assumptions about associations and provide an important step to target effective interventions to foster SDM with all patients.

Perspectives of Patients and Providers in Using Shared Decision Making in Psychiatry

There is increased interest over the last decade in the use of Shared Decision Making with individuals with serious mental illness to improve engagement in treatment and clinical outcomes. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 15 individuals with serious mental illness treated in an outpatient transitional care clinic serving people immediately after discharge from a psychiatric hospitalization. Parallel interviews were conducted with a variety of clinical providers (n = 9). Using latent thematic analysis, six themes were identified including: (1) Differences in the Use of SDM, (2) Consideration of Past Experiences, (3) Decisional Power Preferences, (4) Use of SDM in Psychiatry Versus Other Areas of Medicine, (5) Dignity and Disengagement, and (6) External Forces Impacting SDM. Implications for clinical practice and research using a shared decision-making approach within this treatment setting are further discussed.

Patients' perspective on shared decision-making in urology: a prospective study at a university hospital

PURPOSE

This study aims to determine the degree of shared decision-making (SDM) from urological patients' perspective and to identify possible predictors.

METHODS

Overall, 469 urological patients of a university outpatient clinic were recruited for this prospective study. Before a medical consultation, clinical and sociodemographic information, and patients' emotional distress were assessed by questionnaires. After the consultation, patients completed the SDM-Questionnaire-9 (SDM-Q-9). The SDM-Q-9 scores of relevant subgroups were compared. Logistic regression was used to identify patients at risk for experiencing low involvement (SDM-Q-9 total score ≤ 66) in SDM.

RESULTS

Data from 372 patients were available for statistical analyses. The SDM-Q-9 mean total score was 77.8 ± 20.6. The majority of patients (n = 271, 73%) experienced a high degree of involvement (SDM-Q-9 total score > 66). The mean score per SDM-Q-9 item was in the upper range (3.9 ± 1.4 out of 5). The most poorly rated item was "My doctor wanted to know how I want to be involved in decision-making" (3.5 ± 1.6). Immigration status (OR 3.7, p = 0.049), and nonscheduled hospital registration (OR 2.1, p = 0.047) were significant predictors for less perceived involvement. Comorbidity, oncological status, and emotional distress did not significantly predict perceived participation.

CONCLUSION

In a university hospital setting, most urological patients feel adequately involved in SDM. Nevertheless, urologists should routinely ask for patients' participation preference. Patients without a scheduled appointment and patients who immigrated may need more support to feel involved in SDM.

Correlates of preferring a passive role in decision-making among patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

To assess the factors associated with the persistence of clinician-led style in the therapeutic relationship in cases of serious mental illness, and the conditioning factors that the patients identify as determinants of their health.

METHOD

Assessment of preferences in the decision-making process and health-related control locus of 107 outpatients with DSM-5 diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Demographic and clinical information was also obtained through review of available records and using several scales.

RESULTS

64.4 % patients preferred to adopt a passive role in the therapeutic relationship. In the multivariate analysis, the preference of playing a passive role in the decision-making process was significantly associated with the elderly, being disabled, or the view that one's health depends on doctors (AUC ROC value: 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe mental illness more frequently preferred a passive role in the decision-making process. We found several factors associated with a preference for the "expert role" model.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The identified factors may permit care to be tailored to the most probable expectations as regard decision-making. Since the populations concerned may be vulnerable and suffer inequalities in the provision of health services, promoting participation in the care process could help improve clinical parameters ethically.

Independence of Coping Styles With the Patient-Doctor Relationship and Shared Decision-Making in People With Parkinson's Disease

Introduction:

Coping styles have a mediating effect on several clinical outcomes. The patient–doctor relationship and the patient’s role in decision-making process might be influenced by the way the patient reacts to certain stressors or problems due to the evolution of their disease.

Objective:

To assess the role of coping strategies on the patient–doctor relationship and the patient’s role in decision-making in a group of people with Parkinson’s disease (PD).

Methods:

A cross-sectional study was carried out. The Coping Style Questionnaire (CSQ-40), the 9-item Patient–Doctor Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ-9), and the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) were applied.

Results:

A total of 36 women and 64 men with PD were included. The predominant coping style in women was rational. In men, the detachment style was more frequent. The SDM-Q-9 mean score was 33.2 ± 11.2 (transformed median score of 80). The PDRQ-9 average score was 2.9 ± 1 (sum score of 26.1 ± 8.7). No association was found between the CSQ-40 with the PDRQ-9 or SDM-Q-9. On the other hand, the PDRQ-9 mean score and the transformed SDM-Q-9 score highly correlated (r = 0.62, P < .001).

Conclusion:

Patient–doctor relationship and shared decision-making are independent of the coping style in people with PD.

The Shared Decision-Making Process in the Pharmacological Management of Depression

Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of interaction between doctors and patients in which both actors contribute to the medical decision-making process. There is an international consensus across medicine about the importance of SDM interventions, which have raised great interest in mental healthcare over the last decade. Yet SDM is not widely adopted, particularly in the field of psychiatry. The purpose of the present article is to examine, from a patient and physician perspective, the importance of SDM in the management of healthcare with a focus on mental health; it reviews the enablers and barriers (and how to overcome them) to implementing a SDM process in psychiatric practice. SDM models have been developed recently for involving patients with depression in the decision-making process, which could result in augmenting the proportion of patients who adhere to their antidepressant or other treatments for a duration that complies with the current recommendations. To implement this approach, more physicians need training in the SDM approach and access to appropriate tools that help engage in collaborative deliberation, and practice generally needs to be reorganized around the principles of patient engagement.

Clinical Decision-Making During Psychiatric Ward Rounds

Introduction: For psychiatric in-patients, ward rounds are a prominent occasion for decision making. As previous findings on shared decision-making (SDM) patterns mostly derive from out-patients and one-to-one-consultations, it was our aim to investigate SDM during psychiatric ward rounds. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study and included n = 62 in-patients from seven different psychiatric wards. We collected data from the patient and the treating physician before and after ward rounds and recorded the interaction. Results: We identified two groups of patients regarding their attitude toward ward rounds (no expectations vs. clear agenda). The latter showed higher active engagement, expected more decisions to be made and discussed more topics. Generally, observer rated SDM was low, with vast differences between the doctors' and the patients' perception. Conclusion: Doctors and patients perceive ward rounds differently and there is a discrepancy between subjective and objective involvement. A rather paternalistic doctor-patient-relationship is observed, while patients feel sufficiently involved and vastly satisfied. The potential of ward rounds maximizes if patients have an agenda. Consequently, motivating patients to prepare themselves toward ward rounds should be part of the weekly routine, as well as improving patient participation and information procedures during ward rounds.

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.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to implement a clinical practice guideline for systemic lupus erythematosus: protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a heterogeneous autoimmune disease with significant potential morbidity and mortality. Substantial gaps have been documented between the development and dissemination of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and their implementation in practice. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multi-component knowledge transfer intervention to implement a CPG for the management of SLE (CPG-SLE).

Methods

The study is an open, multicentre, controlled trial with random allocation by clusters to intervention or control. Clusters are four public university hospitals of the Canary Islands Health Service where rheumatologists are invited to participate. Patients diagnosed with SLE at least one year prior to recruitment are selected. Rheumatologists in intervention group receive a short educational group programme to both update their knowledge about SLE management according to CPG-SLE recommendations and to acquire knowledge and training on use of the patient-centred approach, a decision support tool embedded in the electronic clinical record and a quarterly feedback report containing information on management of SLE patients. Primary endpoint is change in self-perceived disease activity. Secondary endpoints are adherence of professionals to CPG-SLE recommendations, health-related quality of life, patient perception of their participation in decision making, attitudes of professionals towards shared decision making, knowledge of professionals about SLE and use of healthcare resources. Calculated sample size is 412 patients. Data will be collected from questionnaires and clinical records. Length of follow-up will be 18 months. Multilevel mixed models with repeated time measurements will be used to analyze changes in outcomes over time. Cost-effectiveness, from both social and healthcare services perspectives, will be analyzed by measuring effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are planned.

Discussion

Impact of CPGs in clinical practice could be improved by applying proven value interventions to implement them. The results of this ongoing trial are expected to generate important scientifically valid and reproducible information not only on clinical effectiveness but also on cost-effectiveness of a multi-component intervention for implementation of a CPG based on communication technologies for chronic patients in the hospital setting.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT03537638. Registered on 25 May 2018.

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.

Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary

BACKGROUND

The nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) is one of the most frequently applied instruments for assessing patients' involvement in medical decision-making. Our objectives were to develop a Hungarian version of SDM-Q-9, to evaluate its psychometric properties and to compare its performance between primary and specialised care settings.

METHODS

In 2019, a sample of adults (n = 537) representative of the Hungarian general population in terms of age, gender and geographic region completed an online survey with respect to a recent health-related decision. Outcome measures included SDM-Q-9 and Control Preferences Scale-post (CPS_post). Item characteristics, internal consistency reliability and the factor structure of SDM-Q-9 were determined.

RESULTS

The overall ceiling and floor effects for SDM-Q-9 total scores were 12.3% and 2.2%, respectively. An excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.925) was demonstrated. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a one-factor model explaining 63.5% of the variance of SDM-Q-9. A confirmatory factor analysis supported the acceptability of this model. Known-groups validity was confirmed with CPS_post categories; mean SDM-Q-9 total scores were higher in the 'Shared decision' category (72.6) compared to both 'Physician decided' (55.1, p = 0.0002) and 'Patient decided' (57.2, p = 0.0086) categories. In most aspects of validity and reliability, there was no statistically significant difference between primary and specialised care.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall good measurement properties of the Hungarian SDM-Q-9 make the questionnaire suitable for use in both primary and specialised care settings. SDM-Q-9 may be useful for health policies targeting the implementation of shared decision-making and aiming to improve efficiency and quality of care in Hungary.

Validating patient and physician versions of the shared decision making questionnaire in oncology setting

Background: This study investigated the psychometric properties of the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) using comprehensive and thorough psychometric methods in an oncology setting. Methods: Cancer survivors (n=1783; 928 [52.05%] males) and physicians (n=154; 121[78.58%] males) participated in this study. Each cancer survivor completed the SDM-Q-9. Physicians completed the SDM-Q-Doc for each of their cancer patient. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch model were used to test the psychometric properties of SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc. Results: SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrated unidimensional structure in CFA and Rasch model. In addition, the measurement invariance was supported for both SDM-Q-9 and SDM-QDoc across sex using the multigroup CFA. Rash analysis indicates no differential item functioning(DIF)across sex for all the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc items. SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc were moderately correlated (r=0.41; P<0.001). Conclusion: SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc are valid instruments to assess shared decision making in the oncology setting.

[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.

Implementing CommonGround in a community mental health center: Lessons in a computerized decision support system

OBJECTIVE

Although shared decision making (SDM) is a key element of client-centered care, it has not been widely adopted. Accordingly, interventions have been developed to promote SDM. The aim of this study was to explore the implementation process of one SDM intervention, CommonGround, which utilizes peer specialists and a computerized decision support center to promote SDM.

METHOD

As part of a larger study, CommonGround was implemented in 4 treatment teams in a community mental health center. The implementation process was examined by conducting semistructured interviews with 12 staff members that were integral to the CommonGround implementation. Responses were analyzed using content analysis. Program fidelity and client program use were also examined.

RESULTS

Although key informants identified several client and staff benefits to using CommonGround, including improved treatment engagement and availability of peer specialists, most clients did not use CommonGround consistently throughout the implementation. Key informants and fidelity reports indicated a number of program (e.g., technological difficulties, increased staff burden) and contextual barriers (e.g., poor fit with service structure, decision support center location, low staff investment and high turnover) to the successful implementation of CommonGround. Strategies to maximize the implementation by increasing awareness, buy-in, and utilization are also reported.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This implementation of CommonGround was limited in its success partly as a result of program and contextual barriers. Future implementations may benefit from incorporating the strategies identified to maximize implementation in order to obtain the full program benefits. (PsycINFO Database Record

What Factors are Associated with Consumer Initiation of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Visits?

Understanding consumer initiation of shared decision making (SDM) is critical to improving SDM in mental health consultations, particularly because providers do not always invite consumer participation in treatment decisions. This study examined the association between consumer initiation of nine elements of SDM as measured by the SDM scale, and measures of consumer illness self-management and the consumer-provider relationship. In 63 mental health visits, three SDM elements were associated with self-management or relationship factors: discussion of consumer goals, treatment alternatives, and pros and cons of a decision. Limitations, implications, and future directions are discussed.

Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non-maleficence. It is argued that SDM is "polyvalent", a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high-quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery-supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes - social marketing and the hospitality industry - are identified.

[Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in oncology: Patient perceptions]

OBJECTIVE

To determine, from the point of view of the oncological patient, who made the decision about their treatment, as well as the major barriers and facilitators that enabled Shared Decision Making to be implemented.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cross-sectional, descriptive, sand association study using a self-report questionnaire to selected cancer patients, with casual sampling in different oncology clinics and random time periods. A total of 108 patients provided analysable data. The information was collected on sociodemographic and clinical variables, who made the decision about treatment, and level of agreement or disagreement with various barriers and facilitators.

RESULTS

More than one-third (38.1%) of patients claimed to have participated in shared decision making with their doctor. Barriers such as, time, the difficulty of understanding, the paternalism, lack of fluid communication, and having preliminary and often erroneous information influenced the involvement in decision-making. However, to have or not have sufficient tools to aid decision making or the patient's interest to participate had no effect. As regards facilitators, physician motivation, their perception of improvement, and the interest of the patient had a positive influence. The exception was the possibility of financial incentives to doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

The little, or no participation perceived by cancer patients in decisions about their health makes it necessary to introduce improvements in the health care model to overcome barriers and promote a more participatory attitude in the patient.

Reviving Research on Medication Attitudes for Improving Pharmacotherapy: Focusing on Adherence

There is little current interest in research into patients' attitudes toward medications. In the 1960s, psychiatric researchers including Uhlenhuth, Rickels and Covi focused on this area, but this research topic needs to be revived in the 21st century. The Health Belief Model may hold potential for doing this. This model was initially developed by 2 health psychologists, Rosenstock and Becker, to explain why patients did not follow medical interventions. The application of this model to study medication adherence in psychiatric outpatients has provided multiple findings including the conclusions that adherence is associated with: (1) the balance between internal and external health control beliefs, (2) psychological reactance, (3) patients' attitudes toward prescribed drug treatment in general and (4) the balance between the necessity of taking medications versus the concerns derived from adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Poor adherence is associated with several cognitive styles of patients, including: (1) high internal and external health control beliefs (patients who feel that their health is controlled both by external factors and their own beliefs), (2) higher psychological reactance, (3) pharmacophobia (present in 1/6 patients) and (4) skepticism about medications (a high concern for ADRs and a low belief in the necessity of taking medications). All of these findings suggest that shared decision-making is particularly important in fostering adherence in psychiatric patients. Two wider applications of this article can be made: (1) opening psychiatry to advances in clinical psychology and (2) expanding studies on attitudes toward medications to other medical disciplines.

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

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of how doctors and patients interact with each other. It aims at changing the traditional power asymmetry between doctors and patients by strengthening the exchange of information and the decisional position of the patient. Although SDM is generally welcomed by mental health patients as well as by mental health professionals its implementation in routine care, especially in the more acute settings, is still lacking. SDM-PLUS has been developed as an approach that addresses both patients and mental health professionals and aims at implementing SDM even for the very acutely ill patients.

METHODS

The SDM-PLUS study will be performed as a matched-pair cluster-randomized trial in acute psychiatric wards. On wards allocated to the intervention group personnel will receive communication training (addressing how to implement SDM for various scenarios) and patients will receive a group intervention addressing patient skills for SDM. Wards allocated to the control condition will continue treatment as usual. A total sample size of 276 patients suffering from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder on 12 wards is planned. The main outcome parameter will be patients' perceived involvement in decision making during the inpatient stay measured with the SDM-Q-9 questionnaire. Secondary objectives include the therapeutic relationship and long term outcomes such as medication adherence and rehospitalization rates. In addition, process measures and qualitative data will be obtained to allow for the analysis of potential barriers and facilitators of SDM-PLUS. The primary analysis will be a comparison of SDM-Q-9 sum scores 3 weeks after study inclusion (or discharge, if earlier) between the intervention and control groups. To assess the effect of the intervention on this continuous primary outcome, a random effects linear regression model will be fitted with ward (cluster) as a random effect term and intervention group as a fixed effect.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first trial examining the SDM-PLUS approach for patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in very acute mental health inpatient settings. Within the trial a complex intervention will be implemented that addresses both patients and health care staff to yield maximum effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00010880 . Registered 09 August 2016.

Treatment-related decisional conflict in patients with depressive and anxious disorders

PURPOSE

To determine the level of treatment-related decisional conflict in patients with emotional disorders and to establish its relationship with sociodemographic and clinical variables.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey on a convenience sample of 321 consecutive psychiatric outpatients with emotional disorders. All patients completed self-report questionnaires assessing sociodemographic and clinical variables, patients' preference of participation in decision making, perceived decisional conflict about treatment, adherence to prescribed treatment, and satisfaction with the psychiatric care provided. Multiple correspondences analysis was used to investigate relationships of decisional conflict with the variables of interest.

RESULTS

Approximately, two-thirds of psychiatric outpatients self-reported decisional conflict regarding their treatment. Interestingly, the presence of decisional conflict did not influence significantly patients' preferences of participation or their adherence to prescribed treatment. Patients without decisional conflict registered significantly higher satisfaction. Multiple correspondences analysis evidenced two clear profiles: patients without decisional conflict received the treatment they preferred, mainly psychotherapy or combined treatment, had been under psychiatric treatment for longer than 5 years, and self-reported high satisfaction with health care received; on the other hand, patients with decisional conflict did not receive the treatment they preferred, were treated with pharmacotherapy alone for a period of time between 1 and 5 years, and self-reported medium satisfaction with received health care.

CONCLUSION

The high level of decisional conflict found in patients with depression and anxiety attending a secondary care service could be an important driving force when personalizing and tailoring information and teaching skills to patients about their illnesses and their treatments.

Perceived involvement and preferences in shared decision-making among patients with hypertension

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an important component of patient-centred care. However, there is limited information on its implementation in Malaysia, particularly in chronic diseases such as hypertension.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine perceived involvement and role preferences of patients with hypertension in treatment decision-making.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 210 patients with hypertension in a teaching hospital in Malaysia.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents agreed that their doctor recognized that a decision needs to be made (89.5%) and informed them that different options are available (77.1%). However, respondents' perceived level of involvement in other aspects of treatment decision-making process was low, including in the selection of treatment and in reaching an agreement with their doctor on how to proceed with treatment. In terms of preferred decision-making roles, 51.4% of respondents preferred a collaborative role with their physicians, 44.8% preferred a passive role while only 1.9% preferred an active role. Age and educational level were found to be significantly related to patient preferences for involvement in SDM. Younger patients (<60 years) and those with higher educational level preferred SDM over passive decision-making (ρ < 0.01). Encouragement from health care providers was perceived as a major motivating factor for SDM among patients with hypertension, with 91% of respondents agreeing that this would motivate their participation in SDM.

CONCLUSION

Preferences for involvement in decision-making among patients with hypertension are varied, and influenced by age and educational level. Physicians have a key role in encouraging patients to participate in SDM.

Shared Decision Making in Vascular Surgery: An Exploratory Study

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process in which patients and their doctors collaborate in choosing a suitable treatment option by incorporating patient values and preferences, as well as the best available evidence. Particularly in vascular surgery, several conditions seem suitable for SDM because there are multiple treatment options. The objective of this study was to assess the degree of SDM behaviour in vascular surgery.

METHODS

Vascular surgeons of four Dutch hospitals selected consultations with patients who were facing a treatment decision. Immediately after the consultation, patients and surgeons completed the (subjective) SDM Q-9 and SDM Q-doc questionnaires respectively, to appreciate the perceived level of SDM behaviour. Two evaluators independently and objectively rated SDM behaviour in the audiotaped consultations, using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION-12) scale.

RESULTS

Nine vascular surgeons and three vascular surgeons in training conducted 54 consultations. The patients' median SDM Q-9 score was high, 93% (IQR 79-100%), and 16/54 (29.6%) of them gave the maximum score. The surgeons' median score was also high, 84% (IQR 73-92%), while 4/54 (7.4%) gave the maximum score. In contrast, mean OPTION score was 31% (SD 11%). Surgeons hardly ever asked the patients for their preferred approach to receive information, whether they had understood the provided information, and how they would like to be involved in SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, objective SDM behaviour among vascular surgeons is limited, even though the presented disorders allow for SDM. Hence, SDM in vascular surgical consultations could be improved by increasing the patients' and surgeons' awareness and knowledge about the concept of SDM.

Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary Care

Purpose

The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc measure patient and physician perception of the extent of shared decision making (SDM) during a physician-patient consultation. So far, no self-report instrument for SDM was available in Dutch, and validation of the scales in other languages has been limited. The aim of this study was to translate both scales into Dutch and assess their psychometric characteristics.

Methods

Participants were patients and their treating physicians (general practitioners and medical specialists). Patients (N = 182) rated their consultation using the SDM-Q-9, 43 physicians rated their consultations using the SDM-Q-Doc (N = 201). Acceptability, reliability (internal consistency), and the factorial structure of the instruments were determined. For convergent validity the CPS_post was used.

Results

Reliabilities of both scales were high (alpha SDM-Q-9 0.88; SDM-Q-Doc 0.87). The SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc total scores correlated as expected with the CPS_post (SDM-Q-9: r = 0.29; SDM-Q-Doc: r = 0.48) and were significantly different between the CPS_post categories, with lowest mean scores when the physician made the decision alone. Principal Component Analyses showed a two-component model for each scale. A confirmatory factor analysis yielded a mediocre, but acceptable, one-factor model, if Item 1 was excluded; for both scales the best indices of fit were obtained for a one-factor solution, if both Items 1 and 9 were excluded.

Conclusion

The Dutch SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc demonstrate good acceptance and reliability; they correlated as expected with the CPS_post and are suitable for use in Dutch primary and specialised care. Although the best model fit was found when excluding Items 1 and 9, we believe these items address important aspects of SDM. Therefore, also based on the coherence with theory and comparability with other studies, we suggest keeping all nine items of the scale. Further research on the SDM-concept in patients and physicians, in different clinical settings and different countries, is necessary to gain a better understanding of the SDM-construct and its measurement.

To what extent psychiatric patients feel involved in decision making about their mental health care? Relationships with socio-demographic, clinical, and psychological variables

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is an essential component of patient-centered care, but there is little information about its use in the psychiatric care.

OBJECTIVE

To measure to what extent psychiatric patients feel they were involved in the process and steps of decision making about treatment choice and to analyse the influence of socio-demographic, clinical, and psychological processes on this perception.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey involving 1100 consecutive psychiatric outpatients invited to complete the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), health locus of control and control preferences, self-efficacy and drug attitude scales, as well as a questionnaire including socio-demographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

A high response rate of 77% was registered, resulting in a sample of 846 psychiatric outpatients. SDM-Q-9 total score indicate a moderately low degree of perceived participation, with differing perceived implementation of the individual the SDM process steps. Patient diagnosis evidenced significant differences in SDM perception. Patients' perception of SDM was explained by four main variables: the older the patient, the lower self-reported SDM; having a diagnosis of schizophrenia increases the likelihood of lower SDM; a positive attitude towards psychiatric drugs favors greater SDM, as well as a higher level of self-efficacy.

CONCLUSION

The result of this study suggests that SDM is currently not widely practiced in psychiatric care. Further research is needed to examine if the low level of participation self-reported is justified by psychiatric patients' decisional capacity.

Factors influencing patients' preferences and perceived involvement in shared decision-making in mental health care

BACKGROUND

Although research has suggested that patients desire to participate in shared decision-making, recent studies show that most patients take a passive role in their treatment decisions. The discrepancy between patients' expressed desire and actual behaviors underscores the need to better understand how patients perceive shared decision-making and what factors influence their participation.

AIMS

To investigate patients' preferences and appraisals of their involvement in treatment decisions.

METHODS

Fifty-four qualitative interviews were conducted with veterans receiving outpatient mental health care at a U.S. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants outlined several factors that influence their preferences and involvement in treatment decisions. These include the patient-provider relationship, fear of being judged, perceived inadequacy, and a history of substance abuse.

CONCLUSION

Patients' preferences and willingness to engage in shared decision-making fluctuate over time and are context dependent. A better understanding of these factors and a strong patient-provider relationship will facilitate better measurement and implementation of shared decision-making.

Psychiatric patients' preferences and experiences in clinical decision-making: examining concordance and correlates of patients' preferences

OBJECTIVE

To assess the concordance between patients' preferred role in clinical decision-making and the role they usually experience in their psychiatric consultations and to analyze the influence of socio-demographic, clinical and personality characteristics on patients' preferences.

METHODS

677 consecutive psychiatric outpatients were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey and 507 accepted. Patients completed Control Preference Scale twice consecutively before consultation, one for their preferences of participation and another for the style they usually experienced until then, and locus of control and self-efficacy scales.

RESULTS

Sixty-three percent of psychiatric outpatients preferred a collaborative role in decision-making, 35% preferred a passive role and only a 2% an active one. A low concordance for preferred and experienced participation in medical decision-making was registered, with more than a half of patients wanting a more active role than they actually had. Age and doctors' health locus of control orientation were found to be the best correlates for participation preferences, while age and gender were for experienced. Psychiatric diagnoses registered significant differences in patients' preferences of participation but no concerning experiences.

CONCLUSION

The limited concordance between preferred and experienced roles in psychiatric patients is indicative that clinicians need to raise their sensitivity regarding patient's participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The assessment of patient's attribution style should be useful for psychiatrist to set objectives and priority in the communication with their patients.

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.