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

Supported decision-making interventions in mental healthcare: A systematic review of current evidence and implementation barriers

BACKGROUND

There is a growing momentum around the world to foster greater opportunities for the involvement of mental health service users in their care and treatment planning. In-principle support for this aim is widespread across mental healthcare professionals. Yet, progress in mental health services towards this objective has lagged in practice.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method research on interventions to improve opportunities for the involvement of mental healthcare service users in treatment planning, to understand the current research evidence and the barriers to implementation.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched and 5137 articles were screened. Articles were included if they reported on an intervention for adult service users, were published between 2008 and October 2023 and were in English. Evidence in the 140 included articles was synthesised according to the JBI guidance on Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Research in this field remains exploratory in nature, with a wide range of interventions investigated to date but little experimental replication. Overarching barriers to shared and supported decision-making in mental health treatment planning were (1) Organisational (resource limitations, culture barriers, risk management priorities and structure); (2) Process (lack of knowledge, time constraints, health-related concerns, problems completing and using plans); and (3) Relationship barriers (fear and distrust for both service users and clinicians).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the barriers identified, recommendations are made to enable the implementation of new policies and programs, the designing of new tools and for clinicians seeking to practice shared and supported decision-making in the healthcare they offer.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This systematic review has been guided at all stages by a researcher with experience of mental health service use, who does not wish to be identified at this point in time. The findings may inform organisations, researchers and practitioners on implementing supported decision-making, for the greater involvement of people with mental ill health in their healthcare.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

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.

Personal preferences for treatment and care during and after a First Episode Psychosis: A qualitative study

AIM

A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is a stressful, often life-changing experience. Scarce information is available about personal preferences regarding their care needs during and after a FEP. Whereas a more thorough understanding of these preferences is essential to aid shared decision-making during treatment and improve treatment satisfaction.

METHODS

Face-to-face interviews with participants in remission of a FEP were set up, addressing personal preferences and needs for care during and after a FEP. The interviews were conducted by a female and a male researcher, the latter being an expert with lived experience.

RESULTS

Twenty individuals in remission of a FEP were interviewed, of which 16 had been hospitalized. The distinguished themes based on personal preferences were tranquillity, peace and quietness, information, being understood, support from significant others, and practical guidance in rebuilding one's life. Our findings revealed that the need for information and the need to be heard were often not sufficiently met. For 16/20 participants, the tranquillity of inpatient treatment of the FEP was predominantly perceived as a welcome safe haven. The presence and support of family and close friends were mentioned as an important factor in the process of achieving remission.

CONCLUSIONS

The current exploratory study showed that patients were able to indicate their personal needs. Important findings are the need for information and the need to be heard. Interestingly, hospitalization was mostly seen as an opportunity to achieve tranquillity. More lived experience expertise is needed to elucidate the needs of individuals in the early phase of a FEP to aid people who are recovering from their first psychosis in rebuilding their lives again.

Efficacy of technology-based interventions in psychosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Technology-based interventions (TBIs) are a useful approach when attempting to provide therapy to more patients with psychosis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of outcomes of TBIs v. face-to-face interventions in psychosis were identified in a systematic search conducted in PubMed/Ovid MEDLINE. Data were extracted independently by two researchers, and standardized mean changes were pooled using a three-level model and network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight studies were included. TBIs complementing treatment as usual (TAU) were generally superior to face-to-face interventions (g = 0.16, p ≤ 0.0001) and to specific outcomes, namely, neurocognition (g = 0.13, p ≤ 0.0001), functioning (g = 0.25, p = 0.006), and social cognition (g = 0.32, p ≤ 0.05). Based on the network meta-analysis, the effect of two TBIs differed significantly from zero; these were the TBIs cognitive training for the neurocognitive outcome [g = 0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.23] and cognitive behavioral therapy for quality of life (g = 1.27; 95% CI 0.46-2.08). The variables educational level, type of medication, frequency of the intervention, and contact during the intervention moderated the effectiveness of TBIs over face-to-face interventions in neurocognition and symptomatology.

CONCLUSIONS

TBIs are effective for the management of neurocognition, symptomatology, functioning, social cognition, and quality of life outcomes in patients with psychosis. The results of the network meta-analysis showed the efficacy of some TBIs for neurocognition, symptomatology, and quality of life. Therefore, TBIs should be considered a complement to TAU in patients with psychosis.

How should patient decision aids for schizophrenia treatment be designed? - A scoping review

Despite the clear rationale for applying shared decision-making in the context of the preference sensitive decision for or against antipsychotics and the upswing of patient decision aids (pDAs) to support this process, there is still a lack of knowledge regarding which key features are crucial for pDAs in schizophrenia treatment. A scoping review according to the PRISMA-SRc was conducted to inform on crucial key features and quality indicators. The review focussed on the following seven aspects for investigating pDAs: (1) Types of decision aids, (2) Values, (3) Decision Guidance, (4) Output of the decision aid, (5) Target group, (6) Effectiveness according to publication and (7) Decision aid evaluation. Eleven studies which addressed six unique decision aids met the eligibility criteria. There were major differences in the design as well as in the development of the decision aids. Three aspects emerged that should be given special consideration in the design of such tools for antipsychotics: the evidence used by the decision aid, the algorithm for translating evidence into a decision aid and finally the presentation of the evidence. We recommend the use of data with a high level of evidence and to combine it with individualized treatment by taking into account patient preferences and previous experiences as well as comparing them with clinical assessments. Fully computerized decision aids that use complicated algorithms, for example, by merging treatment effects with patient characteristics to suggest an appropriate treatment at the end, tend to be paternalistic and thus not appropriate for SDM, in our view. In addition, possible cognitive deficits need to be considered when presenting the output of decision aids for antipsychotics.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Enhancing Medication Adherence Among Patients With Schizophrenia and Schizoaffective Disorder: Mobile App Intervention Study

Introduction

Technology has permeated every aspect of our existence and the mental health sector is not exempt from this.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to test the impact of using a mobile phone app (MyTherapy pill reminder and medication tracker) on medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia and/or schizoaffective disorder.

Methods

Time series design was used. Fifty-one participants were recruited from tertiary hospitals in Oman. The Medication Adherence Rating Scale was used for assessing medication adherence. The data related to medication adherence were collected at baseline, 3 months later and 3 months after installing the program on participants' smartphones. SPSS data set used to analyze the data.

Results

A repeated-measures ANOVA found no significant change in the level of adherence among patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders at the start and 12 weeks later when the mobile app was installed (p  =  .371). However, adherence scores improved significantly 12 weeks after installation of mobile app compared with the same group at the baseline and 12 weeks before the installation of mobile app (p < .001).

Conclusion

The mobile phone app was effective in improving the adherence level among patients. Installation of the program and teaching patients how to use it to improve their level of adherence is recommended.

Impact of a pre-existing diagnosis of mental illness on stage of breast cancer diagnosis among older women

PURPOSE

Having a mental illness increases risk of mortality for women with breast cancer, partly due to barriers to accessing recommended care (e.g., cancer screening). Early detection is one important factor in breast cancer survival. To further understand this disparity in survival, we examined whether older women with mental illness are more likely to be diagnosed with later-staged breast cancers compared to women without mental illnesses.

METHODS

We used 2005-2015 SEER-Medicare data to identify AJCC stage I-IV breast cancer patients with and without a history of mental illness prior to cancer diagnosis. We used generalized ordinal regression to examine associations between mental illness diagnoses and stage at diagnosis, controlling for age, race/ethnicity, income, comorbidities, primary care use, rurality, and marital status.

RESULTS

Among 96,034 women with breast cancer, 1.7% have a serious mental illness (SMI), 19.9% depression or anxiety, and 7.0% other mental illness. Those with SMI have 40% higher odds of being diagnosed with AJCC Stages II, III than Stage I; women with depression/anxiety have 25% lower odds of being diagnosed with Stage IV cancer than Stage I; and women with other mental illnesses have similar odds of being diagnosed in later stages.

CONCLUSION

Women with SMI have higher odds of being diagnosed at later stages, which likely contributes to higher mortality after breast cancer. Surprisingly, women with depression and anxiety have a lower risk of being diagnosed with Stage IV cancer. Earlier breast cancer diagnosis in women with SMI is an important goal for reducing disparities breast cancer survival.

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.

Clients and professionals elicit long-term care preferences by using 'What matters to me': A process evaluation in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

'What matters to me' is a five-category preference elicitation tool to assist clients and professionals in choosing long-term care. This study aimed to evaluate the use of and experiences with this tool.

METHODS

A mixed-method process evaluation was applied. Participants were 71 clients or relatives, and 12 professionals. They were all involved in decision-making on long-term care. Data collection comprised online user activity logs (N = 71), questionnaires (N = 38) and interviews (N = 20). Descriptive statistics was used for quantitative data, and a thematic analysis for qualitative data.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine per cent of participants completed one or more categories in an average time of 6.9 (±0.03) minutes. The tool was rated 6.63 (±0.88) of 7 in the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ). Ninety-five per cent experienced the tool as useful in practice. Suggestions for improvement included a separate version for relatives and a non-digital version. Although professionals thought the potentially extended consultation time could be problematic, all participants would recommend the tool to others.

CONCLUSION

'What matters to me' seems useful to assist clients and professionals with preference elicitation in long-term care. Evaluation of the impact on consultations between clients and professionals by using 'What matters to me' is needed.

Smartphone App to Promote Patient Activation and Support Shared Decision Making in People With a Diagnosis of Schizophrenia in Outpatient Treatment Settings (Momentum Trial): Randomized Controlled Assessor-blinded Trial (Preprint)

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process aimed at facilitating patient-centered care by ensuring that the patient and provider are actively involved in treatment decisions. In mental health care, SDM has been advocated as a means for the patient to gain or regain control and responsibility over their life and recovery process. To support the process of patient-centered care and SDM, digital tools may have advantages in terms of accessibility, structure, and reminders.

Objective

In this randomized controlled trial, we aimed to investigate the effect of a digital tool to support patient activation and SDM.

Methods

The trial was designed as a randomized, assessor-blinded, 2-armed, parallel-group multicenter trial investigating the use of a digital SDM intervention for 6 months compared with treatment as usual. Participants with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizotypal or delusional disorder were recruited from 9 outpatient treatment sites in the Capital Region of Denmark. The primary outcome was the self-reported level of activation at the postintervention time point. The secondary outcomes included self-efficacy, hope, working alliance, satisfaction, preparedness for treatment consultation, symptom severity, and level of functioning. Explorative outcomes on the effect of the intervention at the midintervention time point along with objective data on the use of the digital tool were collected.

Results

In total, 194 participants were included. The intention-to-treat analysis revealed a statistically significant effect favoring the intervention group on patient activation (mean difference 4.39, 95% CI 0.99-7.79; Cohen d=0.33; P=.01), confidence in communicating with one’s provider (mean difference 1.85, 95% CI 0.01-3.69; Cohen d=0.24; P=.05), and feeling prepared for decision-making (mean difference 5.12, 95% CI 0.16-10.08; Cohen d=0.27; P=.04). We found no effect of the digital SDM tool on treatment satisfaction, hope, self-efficacy, working alliance, severity of symptoms, level of functioning, use of antipsychotic medicine, and number or length of psychiatric hospital admissions.

Conclusions

This trial showed a significant effect of a digital SDM tool on the subjective level of patient activation, confidence in communicating with one’s provider, and feeling prepared for decision-making at the postintervention time point. The effect size was smaller than the 0.42 effect size that we had anticipated and sampled for. The trial contributes to the evidence on how digital tools may support patient-centered care and SDM in mental health care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03554655; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03554655

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2143-2

Effectiveness of end-stage renal disease communication skills training for healthcare personnel: a single-center, single-blind, randomized study

BACKGROUND

Given that the consequences of treatment decisions for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are long-term and significant, good communication skills are indispensable for health care personnel (HCP) working in nephrology. However, HCP have busy schedules that make participation in face-to-face courses difficult. Thus, online curricula are a rising trend in medical education. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of online ESRD communication skills training (CST) concerning the truth-telling confidence and shared decision-making (SDM) ability of HCP.

METHODS

For this single-center, single-blind study, 91 participants (nephrologists and nephrology nurses) were randomly assigned to two groups, the intervention group (IG) (n = 45) or the control group (CG) (n = 46), with the IG participating in ESRD CST and the CG receiving regular in-service training. Truth-telling confidence and SDM ability were measured before (T0), 2 weeks after (T1), and 4 weeks after (T2) the intervention. Group differences over the study period were analyzed by generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

IG participants exhibited significantly higher truth-telling confidence at T1 than did CG participants (t = 2.833, P = .006, Cohen's d = 0.59), while there were no significant intergroup differences in the confidence levels of participants in the two groups at T0 and T2. Concerning SDM ability, there were no significant intergroup differences at any of the three time points. However, IG participants had high levels of satisfaction (n = 43, 95%) and were willing to recommend ESRD CST to others (n = 41, 91.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

ESRD CST enhanced short-term truth-telling confidence, though it is unclear whether this was due to CST content or the online delivery. However, during pandemics, when face-to-face training is unsuitable, online CST is an indispensable tool. Future CST intervention studies should carefully design interactive modules and control for method of instruction.

Patient and physician shared decision-making behaviors in oncology: Evidence on adequate measurement properties of the iSHARE questionnaires

OBJECTIVES

We have developed two Dutch questionnaires to assess the shared decision-making (SDM) process in oncology; the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician. In this study, we aimed to determine: scores, construct validity, test-retest agreement (iSHAREpatient), and inter-rater (iSHAREpatient-iSHAREphysician) agreement.

METHODS

Physicians from seven Dutch hospitals recruited cancer patients, and completed the iSHAREphysician and SDM-Questionnaire-physician version. Their patients completed the: iSHAREpatient, nine-item SDM-Questionnaire, Decisional Conflict Scale, Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision-making Effectiveness, and five-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions. We formulated, respectively, one (iSHAREphysician) and 10 (iSHAREpatient) a priori hypotheses regarding correlations between the iSHARE questionnaires and questionnaires assessing related constructs. To assess test-retest agreement patients completed the iSHAREpatient again 1-2 weeks later.

RESULTS

In total, 151 treatment decision-making processes with unique patients were rated. Dimension and total iSHARE scores were high both in patients and physicians. The hypothesis on the iSHAREphysician and 9/10 hypotheses on the iSHAREpatient were confirmed. Test-retest and inter-rater agreement were>.60 for most items.

CONCLUSIONS

The iSHARE questionnaires show high scores, have good construct validity, substantial test-retest agreement, and moderate inter-rater agreement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Results from the iSHARE questionnaires can inform both physician- and patient-directed efforts to improve SDM in clinical practice.

Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Interventions to change health professionals’ behaviour are often difficult to replicate. Incomplete reporting is a key reason and a source of waste in health research. We aimed to assess the reporting of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

Methods

We extracted data from a 2017 Cochrane systematic review whose aim was to determine the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. In a secondary analysis, we used the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to analyze quantitative data. We used a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity to analyze qualitative data, which added details to various TIDieR items (e.g. under “what materials?” we also reported on ease of access to materials). We used SAS 9.4 for all analyses.

Results

Of the 87 studies included in the 2017 Cochrane review, 83 were randomized trials, three were non-randomized trials, and one was a controlled before-and-after study. Items most completely reported were: “brief name” (87/87, 100%), “why” (rationale) (86/87, 99%), and “what” (procedures) (81/87, 93%). The least completely reported items (under 50%) were “materials” (29/87, 33%), “who” (23/87, 26%), and “when and how much” (18/87, 21%), as well as the conditional items: “tailoring” (8/87, 9%), “modifications” (3/87, 4%), and “how well (actual)” (i.e. delivered as planned?) (3/87, 3%). Interventions targeting patients were better reported than those targeting health professionals or both patients and health professionals, e.g. 84% of patient-targeted intervention studies reported “How”, (delivery modes), vs. 67% for those targeting health professionals and 32% for those targeting both. We also reported qualitative analyses for most items. Overall reporting of items for all interventions was 41.5%.

Conclusions

Reporting on all groups or components of SDM interventions was incomplete in most SDM studies published up to 2017. Our results provide guidance for authors on what elements need better reporting to improve the replicability of their SDM interventions.

A Systematic Review of Shared Decision-Making Interventions for Service Users With Serious Mental Illnesses: State of the Science and Future Directions

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model that may be particularly appealing to service users with serious mental illnesses, who often want to be involved in making decisions about their mental health care. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe and evaluate participant, intervention, methodological, and outcome characteristics of SDM intervention studies conducted within this population.

METHODS

Systematic searches of the literature through April 2020 were conducted and supplemented by hand searching of reference lists of identified studies. A total of 53 independent studies of SDM interventions that were conducted with service users with serious mental illnesses and that included a quantitative or qualitative measure of the intervention were included in the review. Data were independently extracted by at least two authors.

RESULTS

Most studies were conducted with middle-age, male, White individuals from Western countries. Interventions fell into the following categories: decision support tools only, multicomponent interventions involving decision support tools, multicomponent interventions not involving decision support tools, and shared care planning and preference elicitation interventions. Most studies were randomized controlled trials with sufficient sample sizes. Outcomes assessed were diverse, spanning decision-making constructs, clinical and functional, treatment engagement or adherence, and other constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest important future directions for research, including the need to evaluate the impact of SDM in special populations (e.g., young adults and racial-ethnic minority groups); to expand interventions to a broader array of decisions, users, and contexts; and to establish consensus measures to assess intervention effectiveness.

Implementing lung cancer screening in primary care: needs assessment and implementation strategy design

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) could help avert thousands of deaths each year. Since the implementation of screening is complex and underspecified, there is a need for systematic and theory-based strategies. Explore the implementation of lung cancer screening in primary care, in the context of integrating a decision aid into the electronic health record. Design implementation strategies that target hypothesized mechanisms of change and context-specific barriers. The study had two phases. The Qualitative Analysis phase included semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians to elicit key task behaviors (e.g., ordering a low-dose CT) and understand the underlying behavioral determinants (e.g., social influence). The Implementation Strategy Design phase consisted of defining implementation strategies and hypothesizing causal pathways to improve screening with a decision aid. Three key task behaviors and four behavioral determinants emerged from 14 interviews. Implementation strategies were designed to target multiple levels of influence. Strategies included increasing provider self-efficacy toward performing shared decision making and using the decision aid, improving provider performance expectancy toward ordering a low-dose CT, increasing social influence toward performing shared decision making and using the decision aid, and addressing key facilitators to using the decision aid. This study contributes knowledge about theoretical determinants of key task behaviors associated with lung cancer screening. We designed implementation strategies according to causal pathways that can be replicated and tested at other institutions. Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies and to determine the contexts in which they can be effectively applied.

Couple-based expanded carrier screening provided by general practitioners to couples in the Dutch general population: psychological outcomes and reproductive intentions

Purpose

The aim of expanded preconception carrier screening (ECS) is to inform any couple wishing to conceive about their chances of having children with severe autosomal or X-linked recessive conditions. Responsible implementation of ECS as reproductive genetic screening in routine care requires assessment of benefits and harms. We examined the psychological outcomes of couple-based ECS for 50 autosomal recessive (AR) conditions provided by general practitioners (GPs) to couples from the Dutch general population.

Methods

Dutch GPs invited 4,295 women aged 18–40. We examined anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI-6), worry, decisional conflict (DCS) over time in participants declining GP counseling or attending GP counseling with/without testing.

Results

One hundred ninety couples participated; 130 attended counseling, of whom 117 proceeded with testing. No carrier couples were identified. Before counseling, worry (median 6.0) and anxiety (mean 30–34) were low and lower than the population reference (36.4), although some individuals reported increased anxiety or worry. At follow-up, test acceptors reported less anxiety than test decliners (mean 29 vs. 35); differences in anxiety after testing compared to before counseling were not meaningful. Most participants (90%) were satisfied with their decision (not) to undergo testing.

Conclusion

Some individuals reported temporarily clinically relevant distress. Overall, the psychological outcomes are acceptable and no barrier to population-wide implementation.

Engagement with online psychosocial interventions for psychosis: A review and synthesis of relevant factors

BACKGROUND

Little is known about factors associated with engagement with online interventions for psychosis. This review aimed to synthesise existing data from relevant literature to develop a working model of potential variables that may impact on engagement with online interventions for psychosis.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for studies relevant to predictors of engagement with online interventions for psychosis; predictors of Internet use amongst individuals with psychosis; and predictors of engagement with traditional psychosocial treatments for psychosis. Data were synthesised into a conceptual model highlighting factors relevant to engagement with online interventions for psychosis.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies were identified. Factors relevant to engagement related directly to the impact of psychosis, response to psychosis, integration of technology into daily lives and intervention aspects.

CONCLUSION

While several candidate predictors were identified, there is minimal research specifically investigated predictors of engagement with online interventions for psychosis. Further investigation examining both individual- and intervention-related factors is required to inform effective design and dissemination of online interventions for psychosis.

Digital Shared Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) in mental healthcare has received increased attention as a process to reinforce person-centered care. With the rapid development of digital health technology, researchers investigate how digital interventions may be utilized to support SDM. Despite the promise of digital interventions to support SDM, the effect of these in mental healthcare has not been evaluated before. Thus, this paper aims to assess the effect of SDM interventions complimented by digital technology in mental healthcare. Objective: The objective of this review was to systematically examine the effectiveness of digital SDM interventions on patient outcomes as investigated in randomized trials. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on digital SDM interventions for people with a mental health condition. We searched for relevant studies in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search strategy included terms relating to SDM, digital systems, mental health conditions, and study type. The primary outcome was patient activation or indices of the same (e.g., empowerment and self-efficacy), adherence to treatment, hospital admissions, severity of symptoms, and level of functioning. Secondary outcomes were satisfaction, decisional conflict, working alliance, usage, and adherence of medicine; and adverse events were defined as harms or side effects. Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria with outcome data from 2,400 participants. Digital SDM interventions had a moderate positive effect as compared with a control condition on patient activation [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.56, CI: 0.10, 1.01, p = 0.02], a small effect on general symptoms (SMD = -0.17, CI: -0.31, -0.03, p = 0.02), and working alliance (SMD = 0.21, CI: 0.02, 0.41, p = 0.03) and for improving decisional conflict (SMD = -0.37, CI: -0.70, -0.05, p = 0.02). No effect was found on self-efficacy, other types of mental health symptoms, adverse events, or patient satisfaction. A total of 39 outcomes were narratively synthesized with results either favoring the intervention group or showing no significant differences between groups. Studies were generally assessed to have unclear or high risk of bias, and outcomes had a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) rating of low- or very low-quality evidence. Conclusions: Digital interventions to support SDM may be a promising tool in mental healthcare; but with the limited quality of research, we have little confidence in the estimates of effect. More quality research is needed to further assess the effectiveness of digital means to support SDM but also to determine which digital intervention features are most effective to support SDM. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020148132.

Sex and gender considerations in implementation interventions to promote shared decision making: A secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) in healthcare is an approach in which health professionals support patients in making decisions based on best evidence and their values and preferences. Considering sex and gender in SDM research is necessary to produce precisely-targeted interventions, improve evidence quality and redress health inequities. A first step is correct use of terms. We therefore assessed sex and gender terminology in SDM intervention studies.

Materials and methods

We performed a secondary analysis of a Cochrane review of SDM interventions. We extracted study characteristics and their use of sex, gender or related terms (mention; number of categories). We assessed correct use of sex and gender terms using three criteria: “non-binary use”, “use of appropriate categories” and “non-interchangeable use of sex and gender”. We computed the proportion of studies that met all, any or no criteria, and explored associations between criteria met and study characteristics.

Results

Of 87 included studies, 58 (66.7%) mentioned sex and/or gender. The most mentioned related terms were “female” (60.9%) and “male” (59.8%). Of the 58 studies, authors used sex and gender as binary variables respectively in 36 (62%) and in 34 (58.6%) studies. No study met the criterion “non-binary use”. Authors used appropriate categories to describe sex and gender respectively in 28 (48.3%) and in 8 (13.8%) studies. Of the 83 (95.4%) studies in which sex and/or gender, and/or related terms were mentioned, authors used sex and gender non-interchangeably in 16 (19.3%). No study met all three criteria. Criteria met did not vary according to study characteristics (p>.05).

Conclusions

In SDM implementation studies, sex and gender terms and concepts are in a state of confusion. Our results suggest the urgency of adopting a standardized use of sex and gender terms and concepts before these considerations can be properly integrated into implementation research.

Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness: A concept analysis

AIM

Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness has increasingly attracted attention. However, this concept has not been comprehensively clarified. This review aimed to clarify a concept of shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, and propose an adequate definition.

METHODS

Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis was used. MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL were searched for articles written in English and published between 2010 and November 2019. The search terms were "psychiatr*" or "mental" or "schizophren*" or "depression" or "bipolar disorder", combined with "shared decision making". In total, 70 articles met the inclusion criteria. An inductive approach was used to identify themes and sub-themes related to shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness. Surrogate terms and a definition of the concept were also described.

RESULTS

Four key attributes were identified: user-professional relationship, communication process, user-friendly visualization, and broader stakeholder approach. Communication process was the densest attribute, which consisted of five phases: goal sharing, information sharing, deliberation, mutual agreement, and follow-up. The antecedents as prominent predisposing factors were long-term complex illness, power imbalance, global trend, users' desire, concerns, and stigma. The consequences included decision-related outcomes, users' changes, professionals' changes, and enhanced relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness is a communication process, involving both user-friendly visualization techniques and broader stakeholders. The process may overcome traditional power imbalance and encourage changes among both users and professionals that could enhance the dyadic relationship.

Feasibility Pilot Outcomes of a Mammography Decision Support and Navigation Intervention for Women With Serious Mental Illness Living in Supportive Housing Settings

Objective: People with serious mental illness (SMI) experience significant disparities in morbidity and mortality from preventable and treatable medical conditions. Women with SMI have low mammography screening rates. SMI, poverty, and poor access to care can have a significant effect on a woman’s opportunity to learn about and discuss breast cancer screening with health care providers. This study examines the feasibility pilot outcomes of mammography decision support and patient navigation intervention (DSNI) for women with SMI living in supportive housing settings. The primary research question was: Does the DSNI increase knowledge, promote favorable attitudes, and decrease decisional conflict relating to screening mammography? Methods: We developed the intervention with the community using participatory methods. Women (n = 21) with SMI who had not undergone screening mammography in the past year participated in an educational module and decision counseling session and received patient navigation over a 6-month period. We conducted surveys and interviews at baseline and follow-ups to assess mammography decisional conflict. Results: Among study participants, 67% received a mammogram. The mammogram DSNI was feasible and acceptable to women with SMI living in supportive housing settings. From baseline to 1-month follow-up, decisional conflict decreased significantly (P = .01). The patient navigation process resulted in 270 attempted contacts (M = 12.86, SD = 10.61) by study staff (phone calls and emails with patient and/or case manager) and 165 navigation conversations (M = 7.86, SD = 4.84). A barrier to navigation was phone communication, with in-person navigation being more successful. Participants reported they found the intervention helpful and made suggestions for further improvement. Conclusions: The process and outcomes evaluation support the feasibility and acceptability of the mammography DSNI. This project provides initial evidence that an intervention developed with participatory methods can improve cancer screening outcomes in supportive housing programs for people with SMI.

Understanding Implementation of a Digital Self-Monitoring Intervention for Relapse Prevention in Psychosis: Protocol for a Mixed Method Process Evaluation

Background

Relapse is common in people who experience psychosis and is associated with many negative consequences, both societal and personal. People who relapse often exhibit changes (early warning signs [EWS]) in the period before relapse. Successful identification of EWS offers an opportunity for relapse prevention. However, several known barriers impede the use of EWS monitoring approaches. Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Well-being, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) is a complex digital intervention that uses a mobile app to enhance the detection and management of self-reported changes in well-being. This is currently being tested in a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. As digital interventions have not been widely used in relapse prevention, little is known about their implementation. Process evaluation studies run in parallel to clinical trials can provide valuable data on intervention feasibility.

Objective

This study aims to transparently describe the protocol for the process evaluation element of the EMPOWER trial. We will focus on the development of a process evaluation framework sensitive to the worldview of service users, mental health staff, and carers; the aims of the process evaluation itself; the proposed studies to address these aims; and a plan for integration of results from separate process evaluation studies into one overall report.

Methods

The overall process evaluation will utilize mixed methods across 6 substudies. Among them, 4 will use qualitative methodologies, 1 will use a mixed methods approach, and 1 will use quantitative methodologies.

Results

The results of all studies will be triangulated into an overall analysis and interpretation of key implementation lessons. EMPOWER was funded in 2016, recruitment finished in January 2018. Data analysis is currently under way and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in December 2019.

Conclusions

The findings from this study will help identify implementation facilitators and barriers to EMPOWER. These insights will inform both upscaling decisions and optimization of a definitive trial.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN99559262; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN99559262

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/15634

GP-provided couple-based expanded preconception carrier screening in the Dutch general population: who accepts the test-offer and why?

Next generation sequencing has enabled fast and relatively inexpensive expanded carrier screening (ECS) that can inform couples’ reproductive decisions before conception and during pregnancy. We previously showed that a couple-based approach to ECS for autosomal recessive (AR) conditions was acceptable and feasible for both health care professionals and the non-pregnant target population in the Netherlands. This paper describes the acceptance of this free test-offer of preconception ECS for 50 severe conditions, the characteristics of test-offer acceptors and decliners, their views on couple-based ECS and reasons for accepting or declining the test-offer. We used a survey that included self-rated health, intention to accept the test-offer, barriers to test-participation and arguments for and against test-participation. Fifteen percent of the expected target population—couples potentially planning a pregnancy—attended pre-test counselling and 90% of these couples proceeded with testing. Test-offer acceptors and decliners differed in their reproductive characteristics (e.g. how soon they wanted to conceive), educational level and stated barriers to test-participation. Sparing a child a life with a severe genetic condition was the most important reason to accept ECS. The most important reason for declining was that the test-result would not affect participants’ reproductive decisions. Our results demonstrate that previously uninformed couples of reproductive age, albeit a selective part, were interested in and chose to have couple-based ECS. Alleviating practical barriers, which prevented some interested couples from participating, is recommended before nationwide implementation.

The Momentum trial: the efficacy of using a smartphone application to promote patient activation and support shared decision making in people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in outpatient treatment settings: a randomized controlled single-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is often defined as an interactive process that ensures that both patient and practitioner are actively involved in the treatment and that they share all relevant information to arrive at a mental health decision. Previous SDM interventions have found improvements in outcomes such as personal recovery, higher perceived involvement in treatment decisions and knowledge about one's disease. Still, SDM occurs less frequently in mental health care than in primary care. Electronic aids developed to support patient activation and SDM could be a promising mean to engage patients in their mental healthcare. The aim of this trial is to investigate the effects of using a smartphone app to promote patient activation and support SDM for people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders in an outpatient treatment setting.

METHODS

This randomised controlled trial will allocate participants to one of two groups: (1) Intervention group: smartphone app and TAU (treatment as usual) or (2) Control group: TAU without the smartphone app. A total sample size of 260 people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizotypal or delusional disorder will be recruited from five OPUS teams (a specialized early intervention program) in Denmark between 2019 and 2020. The intervention will last for 6 months with data collection at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months. Primary outcome will be self-perceived patient activation. Secondary outcomes will be feeling of being prepared for SDM; self-efficacy; working alliance; treatment satisfaction; positive and negative symptoms; level of functioning; hope; and perceived efficacy in patient-provider interaction. Patients' and health providers' preferences in clinical decision making will be assessed. Patients' usage and perceived usefulness of the app will be explored.

DISCUSSION

This study will investigate the efficacy of using the smartphone app to support people with severe mental illness in engaging in their own healthcare management. The study may provide evidence to the idea that linking client and practitioner in digital solutions can have advantages in facilitating SDM in mental health. The trial will provide new knowledge of whether a digital healthcare solution can improve patient activation and support SDM for people with severe mental illness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03554655 Registered on: June 13, 2018.

Feasibility of couple-based expanded carrier screening offered by general practitioners

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) aims to inform couples’ reproductive choice, preferably before conception. As part of an implementation study in which trained general practitioners (GPs) offered a population-based ECS couple-test, we evaluated the feasibility of the test-offer and degree of participant informed choice (IC). Trained GPs from nine practices in the northern Netherlands invited 4295 female patients aged 18–40 to take part in couple-based ECS. Inclusion criteria were having a male partner, planning for children and not being pregnant. We evaluated the feasibility of the organizational aspects, GP competence and the content of the pre-test counselling. Participant satisfaction, evaluation of pre-test counselling and degree of IC were measured using a longitudinal survey. We explored GP experiences and their views on future implementation through semi-structured interviews. 130 consultations took place. All participating GPs were assessed by genetic professionals to be competent to conduct pre-test counselling. Most (63/108 (58%)) consultations took place within the planned 20 min (median 20, IQR 18–28). GPs considered couples’ prior knowledge level an important determinant of consultation length. 91% of patients were (very) satisfied with the GP counselling. After pre-test counselling, 231/237(97%) participants had sufficient knowledge and 206/231(88%) had a positive attitude and proceeded with testing. Our pilot demonstrates that offering couple-based ECS through trained and motivated GPs is feasible. Future large-scale implementation requires a well-informed general public and a discussion about appropriate reimbursement for GPs and health care coverage for couples. Providing (more) test information pre-appointment may help reduce average consultation time.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Towards a comprehensive routine outcome monitoring program for people with psychotic disorders: The Pharmacotherapy Monitoring and Outcome Survey (PHAMOUS)

BACKGROUND

Patients with psychotic disorders are at risk of developing mental health and social problems, and physical disorders. To monitor and treat these problems when indicated, an annual routine outcome monitoring program, Pharmacotherapy Monitoring and Outcome Survey (PHAMOUS), was developed. This paper presents the background and content of PHAMOUS, implementation of PHAMOUS, characteristics of the patients screened in 2015, and the outcome of patients with three annual screenings between 2011 and 2015.

METHODS

PHAMOUS was implemented in four mental health institutions in the Northern Netherlands in 2006. During the PHAMOUS screening, patients are assessed on socio-demographics, psychiatric symptoms, medication, physical parameters, lifestyle, (psycho)social functioning and quality of life, using internationally validated instruments.

RESULTS

In 2015, 1955 patients with psychotic disorders were enrolled in the PHAMOUS screening. The majority (72%) was receiving mental healthcare for ten years or longer. A small group was hospitalized (10%) in the past year. Half of the patients were in symptomatic remission. Less than 10% had a paid job. More than half of the patients fulfilled the criteria for metabolic syndrome (54%). The subsample with three annual screenings from 2011 to 2015 (N = 1230) was stable, except the increasing prevalence of high glucose levels and satisfaction with social relationships (Cochran's Q = 16.33, p = .001 resp. Q = 14.79, p = .001).

CONCLUSION

The annual PHAMOUS screening enables to follow the mental, physical and social health problems of patients, which offers a good basis for shared-decision making with regard to updating the annual treatment plan, next to a wealth of data for scientific research.

Explanation and elaboration of the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines: examples of reporting SUNDAE items from patient decision aid evaluation literature

This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) article expands on the 26 items in the Standards for UNiversal reporting of Decision Aid Evaluations guidelines. The E&E provides a rationale for each item and includes examples for how each item has been reported in published papers evaluating patient decision aids. The E&E focuses on items key to reporting studies evaluating patient decision aids and is intended to be illustrative rather than restrictive. Authors and reviewers may wish to use the E&E broadly to inform structuring of patient decision aid evaluation reports, or use it as a reference to obtain details about how to report individual checklist items.

Exploring service users', carers' and professionals' perspectives and experiences of current antipsychotic prescribing: A qualitative study

Objectives Shared decision-making is the pinnacle of patient-centred care; mental health stakeholders value shared decision-making but find it difficult to enact. The objective was to compare and synthesise mental health stakeholder views on antipsychotic prescribing in one NHS Trust, to understand potential reasons for the difficult enactment of shared decision-making in practice. Methods We conducted 12 interviews and 5 focus groups with 33 mental health stakeholders, after obtaining their informed consent. They shared their experiences in and perceptions of antipsychotic prescribing and were recruited from Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust. Results Stakeholders agreed that successful shared decision-making demands a collaborative approach. We elucidated a striking divergence in views of the decision-making process and understanding of collaboration. Nurses, consultants and the pharmacist seemed most satisfied with the amount of collaboration but most pessimistic about the scope for it. Carers and most service users did not feel that there was any collaboration. Discussion Comparison of perspectives demonstrated the complexity of shared decision-making which is not addressed in current operational definitions or policy or nursing practice initiatives. The findings have the potential to progress initiatives in the mental health field from those that emphasise the need for shared decision-making to those that develop tools to promote shared decision-making.

Computerized Decision Aids for Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: Systematic Review

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) is important in achieving patient-centered care. SDM tools such as decision aids are intended to inform the patient. When used to assist in decision making between treatments, decision aids have been shown to reduce decisional conflict, increase ease of decision making, and increase modification of previous decisions.

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes related to SDM for seriously ill patients.

Methods

PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes and SDM in serious illness. Six RCTs were identified and data were extracted on study population, design, and results. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Results

Six RCTs tested decision tools in varying serious illnesses. Three studies compared different computerized decision aids against each other and a control. All but one study demonstrated improvement in at least one patient-centered outcome. Computerized decision tools may reduce unnecessary treatment in patients with low disease severity in comparison with informational pamphlets. Additionally, electronic health record (EHR) portals may provide the opportunity to manage care from the home for individuals affected by illness. The quality of decision aids is of great importance. Furthermore, satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decisional conflict. Finally, patients may benefit from computerized decision tools without the need for increased physician involvement.

Conclusions

Most computerized decision aids improved at least one patient-centered outcome. All RCTs identified were at a High Risk of Bias or Unclear Risk of Bias. Effort should be made to improve the quality of RCTs testing SDM aids in serious illness.

Improving Adherence to Web-Based and Mobile Technologies for People With Psychosis: Systematic Review of New Potential Predictors of Adherence

Background

Despite the boom in new technologically based interventions for people with psychosis, recent studies suggest medium to low rates of adherence to these types of interventions. The benefits will be limited if only a minority of service users adhere and engage; if specific predictors of adherence can be identified then technologies can be adapted to increase the service user benefits.

Objective

The study aimed to present a systematic review of rates of adherence, dropout, and approaches to analyzing adherence to newly developed mobile and Web-based interventions for people with psychosis. Specific predictors of adherence were also explored.

Methods

Using keywords (Internet or online or Web-based or website or mobile) AND (bipolar disorder or manic depression or manic depressive illness or manic-depressive psychosis or psychosis or schizophr* or psychotic), the following databases were searched: OVID including MedLine, EMBASE and PsychInfo, Pubmed and Web of Science. The objectives and inclusion criteria for suitable studies were defined following PICOS (population: people with psychosis; intervention: mobile or Internet-based technology; comparison group: no comparison group specified; outcomes: measures of adherence; study design: randomized controlled trials (RCT), feasibility studies, and observational studies) criteria. In addition to measurement and analysis of adherence, two theoretically proposed predictors of adherence were examined: (1) level of support from a clinician or researcher throughout the study, and (2) level of service user involvement in the app or intervention development. We provide a narrative synthesis of the findings and followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting systematic reviews.

Results

Of the 20 studies that reported a measure of adherence and a rate of dropout, 5 of these conducted statistical analyses to determine predictors of dropout, 6 analyzed the effects of specific adherence predictors (eg, symptom severity or type of technological interface) on the effects of the intervention, 4 administered poststudy feedback questionnaires to assess continued use of the intervention, and 2 studies evaluated the effects of different types of interventions on adherence. Overall, the percentage of participants adhering to interventions ranged from 28-100% with a mean of 83%. Adherence was greater in studies with higher levels of social support and service user involvement in the development of the intervention. Studies of shorter duration also had higher rates of adherence.

Conclusions

Adherence to mobile and Web-based interventions was robust across most studies. Although 2 studies found specific predictors of nonadherence (male gender and younger age), most did not specifically analyze predictors. The duration of the study may be an important predictor of adherence. Future studies should consider reporting a universal measure of adherence and aim to conduct complex analyses on predictors of adherence such as level of social presence and service user involvement.

Attrition in trials evaluating complex interventions for schizophrenia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Essential criteria for the methodological quality and validity of randomized controlled trials are the drop-out rates from both the experimental intervention and the study as a whole. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed these drop-out rates in non-pharmacological schizophrenia trials. A systematic literature search was used to identify relevant trials with ≥100 sample size and to extract the drop-out data. The rates of drop-out from the experimental intervention and study were calculated with meta-analysis of proportions. Meta-regression was applied to explore the association between the study and sample characteristics and the drop-out rates. 43 RCTs were found, with drop-out from intervention ranging from 0% to 63% and study drop-out ranging from 4% to 71%. Meta-analyses of proportions showed an overall drop-out rate of 14% (95% CI: 13-15%) at the experimental intervention level and 20% (95% CI: 17-24%) at the study level. Meta-regression showed that the active intervention drop-out rates were predicted by the number of intervention sessions. In non-pharmacological schizophrenia trials, drop-out rates of less than 20% can be achieved for both the study and the experimental intervention. A high heterogeneity of drop-out rates across studies shows that even lower rates are achievable.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Transitions from biomedical to recovery-oriented practices in mental health: a scoping review to explore the role of Internet-based interventions

Background

The Internet is transforming mental health care services by increasing access to, and potentially improving the quality of, care. Internet-based interventions in mental health can potentially play a role in transitions from biomedical to recovery-oriented research and practices, but an overview of what this may entail, current work, and issues that need addressing, is lacking. The objective of this study is to describe Internet-based recovery-oriented interventions (referred to as e-recovery) and current research, and to identify gaps and issues relevant to advancing recovery research and practices through opportunities provided by the Internet.

Methods

Five iterative stages of a scoping review framework were followed in searching and analyzing the literature. A recovery framework with four domains and 16 themes was used to deductively code intervention characteristics according to their support for recovery-oriented practices. Only Internet-based interventions used in conjunction with ongoing care were included.

Results

Twenty studies describing six e-recovery interventions were identified and originated in Australia, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and USA. The domain supporting personal recovery was most clearly reflected in interventions, whereas the last three domains, i.e., promoting citizenship, organizational commitment and working relationship were less evident. Support for the formulation and follow-up of personal goals and preferences, and in accessing peer-support, were the characteristics shared by most interventions. Three of the six studies that employed a comparison group used randomization, and none presented definitive findings. None used recovery-oriented frameworks or specific recovery outcome measures. Four of the interventions were specific to a diagnosis.

Conclusion

Research about how technologies might aid in illuminating and shaping recovery processes is in its formative stages. We recommend that future e-recovery research and innovation attend to four dimensions: evidence-supported interventions, new knowledge about personal recovery, values-based approaches and Internet as a facilitator for organizational transformation. The incremental changes facilitated by e-recovery may help propel a shift in mental health care toward recovery-oriented practices.

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.

Feasibility and efficacy of shared decision making for first-admission schizophrenia: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The feasibility of shared decision making (SDM) for patients with schizophrenia remains controversial due to the assumed inability of patients to cooperate in treatment decision making. This study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of SDM in patients upon first admission for schizophrenia.

METHODS

This was a randomized, parallel-group, two-arm, open-label, single-center study conducted in an acute psychiatric ward of Numazu Chuo Hospital, Japan. Patients with the diagnosis of schizophrenia upon their first admission were randomized into a SDM intervention group or a usual treatment group in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction at discharge. The secondary outcomes were attitudes toward medication at discharge and treatment continuation at 6 months after discharge.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were randomly assigned. The trial was prematurely terminated due to slow enrollment. At discharge, the mean score on satisfaction was 23.7 in the SDM group and 22.1 in the usual care group (unadjusted mean difference: 1.6; 95% CI: -5.2 to 2.0). Group differences were not observed in attitude toward medication and treatment continuation. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for the mean Global Assessment of Functioning score at discharge or length of stay as safety endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistical differences were found between the SDM group and usual care group in the efficacy outcomes and safety endpoints. Large trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of the SDM program upon first admission for schizophrenia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01869660 (registered 27 May, 2013).

A survey of eMedia-delivered interventions for schizophrenia used in randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials evaluating electronic Media (eMedia) delivery of interventions are increasingly frequent in mental health. Although a number of reviews have reported efficacy of these interventions, none has reviewed the type of eMedia interventions and quality of their description. We therefore decided to conduct a survey of eMedia-delivered interventions for schizophrenia.

METHODS

We surveyed all relevant trials reliably identified in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's comprehensive register of trials by authors working independently. Data were extracted regarding the size of the trial, interventions, outcomes and how well the intervention was described.

RESULTS

eMedia delivery of interventions is increasingly frequent in trials relevant to the care of people with schizophrenia. The trials varied considerably in sample sizes (mean =123, median =87, range =20-507), and interventions were diverse, rarely evaluating the same approaches and were poorly reported. This makes replication impossible. Outcomes in these studies are limited, have not been noted to be chosen by end users and seem unlikely to be easy to apply in routine care. No study reported on potential adverse effects or cost, end users satisfaction or ease of use. None of the papers mentioned the use of CONSORT eHealth guidelines.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to improve reporting and testing of psychosocial interventions delivered by eMedia. New trials should comply with CONSORT eHealth guidance on design, conduct and reporting, and existing CONSORT should be updated regularly, as the field is constantly evolving.

Do We Still Have a Digital Divide in Mental Health? A Five-Year Survey Follow-up

Background

Nearly everyone in society uses the Internet in one form or another. The Internet is heralded as an efficient way of providing mental health treatments and services. However, some people are still excluded from using Internet-enabled technology through lack of resources, skills, and confidence.

Objective

Five years ago, we showed that people with severe mental illness were at risk of digital exclusion, especially middle-aged patients with psychosis and/or people from black or minority ethnic groups with psychosis. An understanding of the breadth of potential digital exclusion is vital for the implementation of digital health services. The aim of this study is to understand the context of digital exclusion for people who experience mental illness.

Methods

We conducted a survey involving people with a primary diagnosis of psychosis or depression in London, United Kingdom. A total of 241 participants were recruited: 121 with psychosis and 120 with depression. The majority of surveys were collected face-to-face (psychosis: n=109; depression: n=71). Participants answered questions regarding familiarity, access, use, motivation, and confidence with Internet-enabled technologies (ie, computers and mobile phones). Variables predicting digital exclusion were identified in regression analyses. The results were compared with the survey conducted in 2011.

Results

Digital exclusion has declined since 2011. Online survey collection introduced biases into the sample, masking those who were likely to be excluded. Only 18.3% (20/109) of people with psychosis in our sample were digitally excluded, compared with 30% (28/93) in 2011 (χ²₁=3.8, P=.04). People with psychosis had less confidence in using the Internet than people with depression (χ²₁=7.4, P=.004). Only 9.9% (24/241) of participants in the total sample were digitally excluded, but the majority of these people had psychosis (n=20). Those with psychosis who were digitally excluded were significantly older than their included peers (t₃₀=3.3, P=.002) and had used services for longer (t₉₇=2.5, P=.02). Younger people were more likely to use mobile phones. Digitally excluded participants cited a lack of knowledge as a barrier to digital inclusion, and most wanted to use the Internet via computers (rather than mobile phones).

Conclusions

Digital exclusion is lower, but some remain excluded. Facilitating inclusion among this population means helping them develop skills and confidence in using technology, and providing them with access. Providing mobile phones without basic information technology training may be counterproductive because excluded people may be excluded from mobile technology too. An evidence-based digital inclusion strategy is needed within the National Health Service to help digitally excluded populations access Internet-enabled services.

Measuring Users' Receptivity Toward an Integral Intervention Model Based on mHealth Solutions for Patients With Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia (m-RESIST): A Qualitative Study

Background

Despite the theoretical potential of mHealth solutions in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia, there remains a lack of technological tools in clinical practice.

Objective

The aim of this study was to measure the receptivity of patients, informal carers, and clinicians to a European integral intervention model focused on patients with persistent positive symptoms: Mobile Therapeutic Attention for Patients with Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia (m-RESIST).

Methods

Before defining the system requirements, a qualitative study of the needs of outpatients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia was carried out in Spain, Israel, and Hungary. We analyzed the opinions of patients, informal carers, and clinicians concerning the services originally intended to be part of the solution. A total of 9 focus groups (72 people) and 35 individual interviews were carried out in the 3 countries, using discourse analysis as the framework.

Results

A webpage and an online forum were perceived as suitable to get both reliable information on the disease and support. Data transmission by a smart watch (monitoring), Web-based visits, and instant messages (clinical treatment) were valued as ways to improve contact with clinicians. Alerts were appreciated as reminders of daily tasks and appointments. Avoiding stressful situations for outpatients, promoting an active role in the management of the disease, and maintaining human contact with clinicians were the main suggestions provided for improving the effectiveness of the solution.

Conclusions

Positive receptivity toward m-RESIST services is related to its usefulness in meeting user needs, its capacity to empower them, and the possibility of maintaining human contact.

Information and Decision-Making Needs Among People with Anxiety Disorders: Results of an Online Survey

BACKGROUND

People with anxiety disorders are faced with treatment decisions considerably affecting their life. Patient decision aids are aimed at enabling patients to deliberate treatment options based on individual values and to participate in medical decisions.

OBJECTIVE

This is the first study to determine patients' information and decision-making needs as a pre-requisite for the development of patient decision aids for anxiety disorders.

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey was conducted between January and April 2013 on the e-health portal http://www.psychenet.de by using a self-administered questionnaire with items on internet use, online health information needs, role in decision making and important treatment decisions. Descriptive and inferential statistical as well as qualitative data analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 60 people with anxiety disorders with a mean age of 33.3 years (SD 10.5) participated in the survey. The most prevalent reasons for online health information search were the need for general information on anxiety disorders, the search for a physician or psychiatrist and the insufficiency of information given by the healthcare provider. Respondents experienced less shared and more autonomous decisions than they preferred. They assessed decisions on psychotherapy, medication, and treatment setting (inpatient or outpatient) as the most difficult decisions.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm the importance of offering patient decision aids for people with anxiety disorders that encourage patients to participate in decision making by providing information about the pros and cons of evidence-based treatment options.

Results of a pilot cluster randomised trial of the use of a Medication Review Tool for people taking antipsychotic medication

BACKGROUND

Government policy encourages increasing involvement of patients in their long-term care. This paper describes the development and pilot evaluation of a 'Medication Review Tool' designed to assist people to participate more effectively in discussions about antipsychotic drug treatment.

METHODS

The Medication Review Tool developed consisted of a form to help patients identify pros and cons of their current antipsychotic treatment and any desired changes. It was associated with a website containing information and links about antipsychotics. For the trial, participants diagnosed with psychotic disorders were recruited from community mental health services. Cluster randomisation was used to allocate health professionals (care co-ordinators) and their associated patients to use of the Medication Review Tool or usual care. All participants had a medical consultation scheduled, and those in the intervention group completed the Medication Review Tool, with the help of their health professional prior to this, and took the completed Form into the consultation. Two follow-up interviews were conducted up to three months after the consultation. The principal outcome was the Decision Self Efficacy Scale (DSES). Qualitative feedback was collected from patients in the intervention group.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty patients were screened, sixty patients were randomised, 51 completed the first follow-up assessment and 49 completed the second. Many patients were not randomised due to the timing of their consultation, and involvement of health professionals was inconsistent. There was no difference between the groups on the DSES (-4.16 95 % CI -9.81, 1.49), symptoms, side effects, antipsychotic doses or patient satisfaction. Scores on the Medication Adherence Questionnaire indicated an increase in participants' reported inclination to adherence in the intervention group (coefficient adjusted for baseline values -0.44; 95 % CI -0.76, -0.11), and there was a small increase in positive attitudes to antipsychotic medication (Drug Attitude Inventory, adjusted coefficient 1.65; 95 % CI -0.09, 3.40). Qualitative feedback indicated patients valued the Tool for identifying both positive and negative aspects of drug treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial demonstrated the design was feasible, although challenges included service re-configurations and maintaining health professional involvement. Results may indicate a more intensive and sustained intervention is required to facilitate participation in decision-making for this group of patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current controlled trials ISRCTN12055530 , Retrospectively registered 9/12/2013.

Primary Care Provider Views About Usefulness and Dissemination of a Web-Based Depression Treatment Information Decision Aid

Background

Decisions related to mental health are often complex, problems often remain undetected and untreated, information unavailable or not used, and treatment decisions frequently not informed by best practice or patient preferences.

Objective

The objective of this paper was to obtain the opinions of health professionals working in primary health care settings about a Web-based information decision aid (IDA) for patients concerning treatment options for depression and the dissemination of the resources in primary care settings.

Methods

Participants were recruited from primary care clinics in Winnipeg and Ottawa, Canada, and included 48 family physicians, nurses, and primary care staff. The study design was a qualitative framework analytic approach of 5 focus groups. Focus groups were conducted during regular staff meetings, were digitally recorded, and transcripts created. Analysis involved a content and theme analysis.

Results

Seven key themes emerged including the key role of the primary care provider, common questions about treatments, treatment barriers, sources of patient information, concern about quality and quantity of available information, positive opinions about the IDA, and disseminating the IDA. The most common questions mentioned were about medication and side effects and alternatives to medication. Patients have limited access to alternative treatment options owing to cost and availability.

Conclusions

Practitioners evaluated the IDA positively. The resources were described as useful, supportive of providers’ messages, and accessible for patients. There was unanimous consensus that information needs to be available electronically through the Internet.

Routine outcome measurement in the Netherlands - A focus on benchmarking

Routine outcome measurement (ROM) is a 'hot' topic in the Netherlands. Over recent years the Netherlands have developed a centralized monitoring system for all reimbursed mental health interventions, in an attempt to improve the quality of care. The Foundation for Benchmarking Mental Health (SBG) is an independent knowledge centre for mental health providers and insurance companies. It was founded to organize and manage the countrywide ROM initiative. A Dutch countrywide ROM initiative is appealing, and the procedures in the Netherlands are described. However, the national ROM system was oversold. Arguments are discussed. It would have been a far better strategy if insurance companies and authorities had not focused on a national system but stimulated local data collection and requested a managerial plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle to stimulate service improvements from year to year. Within the same service, chances are higher that the same kind of clientele is served from year to year and therefore it will be easier to interpret the data. The ROM should regain its clinical focus. Mobile ROM systems using smartphones that collect sampled experiences could be an interesting future solution.

Acceptability of Interventions Delivered Online and Through Mobile Phones for People Who Experience Severe Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review

Background

Psychological interventions are recommended for people with severe mental health problems (SMI). However, barriers exist in the provision of these services and access is limited. Therefore, researchers are beginning to develop and deliver interventions online and via mobile phones. Previous research has indicated that interventions delivered in this format are acceptable for people with SMI. However, a comprehensive systematic review is needed to investigate the acceptability of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions for SMI in depth.

Objective

This systematic review aimed to 1) identify the hypothetical acceptability (acceptability prior to or without the delivery of an intervention) and actual acceptability (acceptability where an intervention was delivered) of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions for SMI, 2) investigate the impact of factors such as demographic and clinical characteristics on acceptability, and 3) identify common participant views in qualitative studies that pinpoint factors influencing acceptability.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of the databases PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science in April 2015, which yielded a total of 8017 search results, with 49 studies meeting the full inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they measured acceptability through participant views, module completion rates, or intervention use. Studies delivering interventions were included if the delivery method was online or via mobile phones.

Results

The hypothetical acceptability of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions for SMI was relatively low, while actual acceptability tended to be high. Hypothetical acceptability was higher for interventions delivered via text messages than by emails. The majority of studies that assessed the impact of demographic characteristics on acceptability reported no significant relationships between the two. Additionally, actual acceptability was higher when participants were provided remote online support. Common qualitative factors relating to acceptability were safety and privacy concerns, the importance of an engaging and appealing delivery format, the inclusion of peer support, computer and mobile phone literacy, technical issues, and concerns about the impact of psychological state on intervention use.

Conclusions

This systematic review provides an in-depth focus on the acceptability of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions for SMI and identified the need for further research in this area. Based on the results from this review, we recommend that researchers measure both hypothetical and actual acceptability to identify whether initial perceptions of online and mobile phone-delivered interventions change after access. In addition, more focus is needed on the potential impact of demographic and clinical characteristics on acceptability. The review also identified issues with module completion rates and intervention use as measures of acceptability. We therefore advise researchers to obtain qualitative reports of acceptability throughout each phase of intervention development and testing. Further implications and opportunities for future research are discussed.

Effectiveness of Social Media Interventions for People With Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Recent studies have shown that people with serious mental disorders spend time online for the purposes of disclosure, information gathering, or gaming. However, coherent information on the effects of social media on treatment for people with schizophrenia is still lacking.

Objective

Our aim was to determine the effects of social media interventions for supporting mental health and well-being among people with schizophrenia.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to determine the effects of social media interventions for supporting mental health and well-being among people with schizophrenia. Ten databases were searched, while search parameters included English-only manuscripts published prior to June 25, 2015. Study appraisals were made independently by 2 reviewers, and qualitative and quantitative syntheses of data were conducted.

Results

Out of 1043 identified records, only two randomized studies of moderate quality (three records, total N=331, duration 12 months) met the inclusion criteria. Participants were people with schizophrenia spectrum or an affective disorder. Social media was used as part of Web-based psychoeducation, or as online peer support (listserv and bulletin board). Outcome measures included perceived stress, social support, and disease-related distress. At 3 months, participants with schizophrenia in the intervention group reported lower perceived stress levels ( P=.04) and showed a trend for a higher perceived level of social support ( P=.06). However, those who reported more positive experiences with the peer support group also reported higher levels of psychological distress ( P=.01).

Conclusions

Despite using comprehensive searches from 10 databases, we found only two studies, whereas numerous reports have been published citing the benefits of social media in mental health. Findings suggest the effects of social media interventions are largely unknown. More research is needed to understand the effects of social media, for users with and without mental illness, in order to determine the impact on mental well-being ofsocial media use as well as its risks.

Use of Decision Support for Improved Knowledge, Values Clarification, and Informed Choice in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the potential value of a theory-based, interactive decision support tool in clinical practice for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are candidates for biologic agents.

METHODS

We conducted an 8-week, 2-arm, parallel, single-blind pilot trial in which candidates for treatment escalation with a biologic agent were randomized to receive either a link to a web-based tool or usual care. Outcomes included changes in objective knowledge, subjective knowledge, values clarification, and satisfaction with risk communication as well as the proportion of subjects defined as making an informed choice to escalate care at 2 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 125 subjects were randomized. Significant between-group differences at 2 weeks favoring the intervention group were seen for changes in objective knowledge, subjective knowledge, and values clarification. No significant between-group differences were found in subjects' satisfaction with risk communication. Among those deciding to escalate care, a greater percentage met the criteria for an informed choice at 2 weeks in the intervention group compared to the control group (32% versus 13%; P = 0.02). Improvements in subjective knowledge and values clarification persisted at 8 weeks. There were no between-group differences in objective knowledge at 8 weeks.

CONCLUSION

In this study, use of a decision support tool at the time of decision-making resulted in improved objective and subjective knowledge, as well as values clarity, compared to usual care. Not all improvements were sustained, emphasizing the need to offer educational support should additional escalation of care be required over the course of the illness.

Treatment engagement of individuals experiencing mental illness: review and update

Individuals living with serious mental illness are often difficult to engage in ongoing treatment, with high dropout rates. Poor engagement may lead to worse clinical outcomes, with symptom relapse and rehospitalization. Numerous variables may affect level of treatment engagement, including therapeutic alliance, accessibility of care, and a client's trust that the treatment will address his/her own unique goals. As such, we have found that the concept of recovery-oriented care, which prioritizes autonomy, empowerment and respect for the person receiving services, is a helpful framework in which to view tools and techniques to enhance treatment engagement. Specifically, person-centered care, including shared decision making, is a treatment approach that focuses on an individual's unique goals and life circumstances. Use of person-centered care in mental health treatment models has promising outcomes for engagement. Particular populations of people have historically been difficult to engage, such as young adults experiencing a first episode of psychosis, individuals with coexisting psychotic and substance use disorders, and those who are homeless. We review these populations and outline how various evidence-based, recovery-oriented treatment techniques have been shown to enhance engagement. Our review then turns to emerging treatment strategies that may improve engagement. We focus on use of electronics and Internet, involvement of peer providers in mental health treatment, and incorporation of the Cultural Formulation Interview to provide culturally competent, person-centered care. Treatment engagement is complex and multifaceted, but optimizing recovery-oriented skills and attitudes is essential in delivery of services to those with serious mental illness.