Shared decision-making: increases autonomy in substance-dependent patients

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.

Shared decision-making and client-reported dose satisfaction in a longitudinal cohort receiving injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT)

BACKGROUND

Across different types of oral Opioid Agonist Treatment for people with Opioid Use Disorder, receiving a dose that meets their needs is associated with better outcomes. Evidence also shows patients are more likely to receive an "adequate dose" when their prescribers are involving them in decision making. Neither of these findings have been studied in the context of injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment, which is the purpose of this study.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of an 18-month prospective longitudinal cohort study of 131 people receiving injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment. In the 18-month study, observations were collected every two months for one year, and then once more at 18 months. At 6 months, participants were asked whether their dose was satisfactory to them (outcome variable). Generalized Estimating Equations were used, to account for multiple observations from each participant. The final multivariate model was built using a stepwise approach.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-five participant-observations were included in the analysis. Participant-observations were grouped by "dose is satisfactory" and "wants higher dose". From unadjusted analyses, participants were less likely to report being satisfied with their dose if they: were Indigenous, had worse psychological or physical health problems, had ever attempted suicide, were younger when they first injected any drug, were a current smoker, felt troubled by drug problems, gave their medication a lower "drug liking" score, and felt that their doctor was not including them in decisions the way they wanted to be. In the final multivariate model, all previously significant associations except for "current smoker" and "troubled by drug problems" were no longer significant after the addition of the "drug liking" score.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment who are not satisfied with their dose are more likely to: be troubled by drug problems, be a current smoker, and report liking their medication less than dose-satisfied patients. Prescribers' practicing shared decision-making can help patients achieve dose-satisfaction and possibly alleviate troubles from drug problems. Additionally, receiving a satisfactory dose may be dependent on patients being able to access an opioid agonist medication (and formulation) that they like.

Using Collaborative Documentation to Support Person-Centered Care in Substance Use Settings

The delivery of person-centered care (PCC) is critical to promoting service engagement among individuals who use substances. Collaborative documentation (CD) is an emerging person-centered practice used in community mental health, but has not been evaluated in substance use settings. This qualitative study conducted focus groups with substance use treatment providers (n=22) in an outpatient clinic to examine the impact of CD on PCC and clinical quality. Rapid qualitative analysis methods were used to identify key themes. Participants reported that using CD reduced documentation time and helped build trust and better understand their clients. Using CD presented unique challenges and opportunities when used with mandated populations or those with complex symptoms. The importance of honoring clients' preference not to collaborate in care was a salient theme. Findings indicate that CD can promote PCC in substance use treatment. Targeted strategies to optimize CD for mandated and clinically complex populations are needed.

The Effect of Shared Decision-Making by Mental Health Nurses on Medication Adherence in Patients with Alcohol Use Disorders: Provider-Patient Communication Pathway Model

The involvement of patients with mental health issues in their own treatment decision-making has often been overlooked. This study aimed to investigate the impact of shared decision-making between mental health nurses and patients with alcohol use disorders (AUD) on medication adherence. The provider-patient communication pathway model was utilized to examine the ways in which therapeutic communication strategies employed by mental health nurses positively influence medication adherence. The study employed a percentile bootstrap method and pairwise comparison tests in structural equation modeling. The results revealed that shared decision-making between AUD patients and mental health nurses directly enhanced medication adherence, as well as indirectly influenced adherence through the mediating factors of therapeutic alliance and alcohol abstinence self-efficacy. These findings hold both theoretical and practical implications for involving patients with AUD in therapeutic decision-making within psychiatric and mental health nursing settings, as well as for improving medication adherence among this patient population.

Shared decision making in patients with substance use disorders: A one-year follow-up study

Patient-centered care in therapeutic processes has been associated with better clinical outcomes, however, it remains a poorly studied aspect in Substance Use Disorder (SUD). The study aimed to evaluate patient's preferences, perceived participation in treatment decisions and activation level; and how they predict retention, pharmacological adherence and substance use during one-year follow-up. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the association between independent variables, along with a wide number of sociodemographic and clinical covariates, and outcomes. Most patients prefer a shared or passive role when making decisions about their treatment, and showed concordance between their preferred and perceived roles. In the univariate models, perceiving more involvement than desired showed a higher likelihood of treatment discontinuation at 12 months, and substance use at 6 and 12 months. No significant associations were found between the remaining decisional variables or the degree of activation with the assessed outcomes. A majority of SUD patients prefer and perceive to be involved in the decision-making process about their treatment. Patients perceiving more involvement than desired might experience an excess of responsibility that could negatively influence treatment continuation and substance use. Limitations of the study preclude any definitive conclusion, and more research is needed to confirm these results.

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.

Impact of clinical decision-making participation and satisfaction on outcomes in mental health practice: results from the CEDAR European longitudinal study

The present study aimed to assess: (1) whether a more active involvement of patients is associated with an improvement of clinical symptoms, global functioning, and quality-of-life; and (2) how patients' satisfaction with clinical decisions can lead to better outcome after 1 year. Data were collected as part of the study 'Clinical decision-making and outcome in routine care for people with severe mental illness (CEDAR)', a longitudinal observational study, funded by the European Commission and carried out in six European countries. Patients' inclusion criteria were: (a) aged between 18 and 60 years; (b) diagnosis of a severe mental illness of any kind according to the Threshold Assessment Grid (TAG) ≥ 5 and duration of illness ≥ 2 years; (c) expected contact with the local mental health service during the 12-month observation period; (d) adequate skills in the language of the host countries; and (e) the ability to provide written informed consent. The clinical decision-making styles of clinicians and the patient satisfaction with decisions were assessed using the Clinical Decision Making Style and the Clinical Decision Making Involvement and Satisfaction scales, respectively. Patients were assessed at baseline and 1 year after the recruitment. The sample consisted of 588 patients with severe mental illness, mainly female, with a mean age of 41.69 (±10.74) and a mean duration of illness of 12.5 (±9.27) years. The majority of patients were diagnosed with psychotic (45.75%) or affective disorders (34.01%). At baseline, a shared CDM style was preferred by 70.6% of clinicians and about 40% of patients indicated a high level of satisfaction with the decision and 31% a medium level of satisfaction. Higher participation in clinical decisions was associated with improved social functioning and quality-of-life, and reduced interpersonal conflicts, sense of loneliness, feelings of inadequacy, and withdrawal in friendships after 1 year (p < 0.05). Moreover, a higher satisfaction with decisions was associated with a better quality-of-life (p < 0.0001), reduced symptom severity (p < 0.0001), and a significantly lower illness burden associated with symptoms of distress (p < 0.0001), interpersonal difficulties (p < 0.0001), and problems in social roles (p < 0.05). Our findings clearly show that a higher involvement in and satisfaction of patients with clinical decision-making was associated with better outcomes. More efforts have to be made to increase the involvement of patients in clinical decision-making in routine care settings.

Implementation and staff understanding of shared decision-making in the context of recovery-oriented care across US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient mental healthcare units: a mixed-methods evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To examine the understanding and practice of shared decision-making (SDM) within the context of recovery-oriented care across Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient mental healthcare units.

DESIGN

VHA inpatient mental health units were scored on the Recovery-Oriented Acute Inpatient Scale (RAIN). Scores on the RAIN item for medication SDM were used to rank each site from lowest to highest. The top 7 and bottom 8 sites (n=15) were selected for additional analyses using a mixed-methods approach, involving qualitative interviews, observation notes and quantitative data.

SETTING

34 VHA inpatient mental health units located in every geographical region of the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

55 treatment team members.

RESULTS

Our results identified an overarching theme of 'power-sharing' that describes participants' conceptualisation and practice of medication decision-making. Three levels of power sharing emerged from both interview and observational data: (1) No power sharing: patients are excluded from treatment decisions; (2) Limited power sharing: patients are informed of treatment decisions but have limited influence on the decision-making process; and (3) Shared-power: patients and providers work collaboratively and contribute to medication decisions. Comparing interview to observational data, only observational data indicating those themes differentiate top from bottom scoring sites on the RAIN SDM item scores. All but one top scoring sites indicated shared power medication decision processes, whereas bottom sites reflected mostly no power sharing. Additionally, our findings highlight three key factors that facilitate the implementation of SDM: inclusion of veteran in treatment teams, patient education and respect for patient autonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of SDM appears feasible in acute inpatient mental health units. Although most participants were well informed about SDM, that knowledge did not always translate into practice, which supports the need for ongoing implementation support for SDM. Additional contextual factors underscore the value of patients' self-determination as a guiding principle for SDM, highlighting the role of a supporting, empowering and autonomy-generating environment.

The impact of a needs-based model of care on accessibility and quality of care within children's mental health services: A qualitative investigation of the UK i-THRIVE Programme

BACKGROUND

The i-THRIVE Programme is a needs-based model of care, based on the THRIVE Framework, that is being implemented across the United Kingdom with the aim of improving outcomes for children and young people's mental health and wellbeing. This study aimed to investigate the impact that this programme has on accessibility and quality of care, as viewed by key stakeholders.

METHODS

Interviews with professionals and service users were conducted during the implementation of the THRIVE Framework in four sites of one mental health and community service provider.

RESULTS

Three themes are identified: 'impact of needs-based groupings on referral', 'impact of collaborative and interagency approach' and 'impact of i-THRIVE on clinical practice'. Findings suggest that accessibility was seen to be promoted through the integration of a needs-based approach, flexible re-referral, signposting and information sharing, the use of goal-orientated interventions and collaboration over risk and treatment endings. Shared decision making was perceived to improve the experience of care for young people, as was interagency working. Goal-focused interventions and upfront discussion of treatment endings were seen to help clinicians manage expectations and discharge but could also compromise effectiveness and engagement. Obstacles to impact were resistance to interagency working and a shortage of resources across the system.

CONCLUSIONS

i-THRIVE is a promising approach with the potential to facilitate the accessibility and quality of mental health care. However, a tension exists between enhancing accessibility and quality of care, which points towards the importance of outcome and satisfaction monitoring. Obstacles to impact point to the importance of a whole-system approach supported by sufficient resources across the locality.

How do users with comorbidity perceive participation in social services? A qualitative interview study

Purpose: This study aims to construct a theoretical framework that explains how users with comorbidity of substance use and mental illness/neuropsychiatric disorders portray user participation in social work encounters.

Methods: To construct this framework a constructivist grounded theory approach was used with semi-structured qualitative interviews with 12 users.

Results: The main concern of the participants was the low trust in the social services and perceiving that this lack of trust is mutual. Establishing mutual trust is a social process that cuts through the whole framework. In the framework, prerequisites for participation are explained. The prerequisites are users being motivated and having the willingness to stop using drugs and receiving support, making use of user and staff knowledge and decision-making abilities and accessing help and support.

Conclusion: Unlike previous frameworks, the model describes participation as a social process and does not explain participation at different levels of power. The results suggest that staff need to be aware of low trust perceptions and work on establishing mutual trust. In addition, the staff need to see each user as an individual and consider how the user would prefer to be involved in decision-making.

A qualitative investigation of HIV treatment dispensing models and impacts on adherence among people living with HIV who use drugs

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) dispensing is strongly associated with treatment adherence. Among illicit drug-using populations, whom experience greater structural barriers to adherence, directly administered antiretroviral therapy (DAAT) is often regarded as a stronger predictor of optimal adherence over self-administered medications. In Vancouver, Canada, people living with HIV (PLHIV) who use drugs and live in low-income housing are a critical population for treatment support. This group is typically able to access two key DAAT models, daily delivery and daily pickup, in addition to ART self-administration. This ethno-epidemiological qualitative study explores how key dispensing models impact ART adherence among PLHIV who use drugs living in low-income housing, and how this is framed by structural vulnerability. Semi-structured interviews lasting 30-45 minutes were conducted between February and May 2018 with 31 PLHIV who use drugs recruited from an ongoing prospective cohort of PLHIV who use drugs. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using QSR International's NVivo 12 software. Interviews focused on housing, drug use, and HIV management. Models that constrained agency were found to have negative impacts on adherence and quality of life. Treatment interruptions were framed by structural vulnerabilities (e.g., housing vulnerability) that impacted ability to maintain adherence under certain dispensing models, and led participants to consider other models. Participants using DAAT models which accounted for their structural vulnerabilities (e.g., mobility issues, housing instability), credited these models for their treatment adherence, but also acknowledged factors that constrained agency, and the negative impacts this could have on both adherence, and quality of life. Being able to integrate ART into an established routine is key to supporting ART adherence. ART models that account for the structural vulnerability of PLHIV who use drugs and live in low-income housing are necessary and housing-based supports could be critical, but the impacts of such models on agency must be considered to ensure optimal adherence.

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

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

A values-based phenomenology for substance use disorder: a new approach for clinical decision-making

Abstract Phenomenological psychopathology has been defined as a human science that is concerned with the object on which clinical psychology and psychiatry act. How psychopathological experiences are understood is an important factor determining decision-making in clinical care. An accurate understanding of psychopathology is fundamental to the effectiveness of mental health treatments. This is even more important in a field such as substance use disorders in which social and cultural values influence both diagnosis and decision-making. In this article, we offer a contribution to clinical decision-making in substance use disorders by suggesting the association of Phenomenological Psychopathology and Values-Based Practice, constituting a Values-based Phenomenology We present a fictitious clinical case (to preserve confidentiality), illustrating a three-step practical application of Values-based Phenomenology. We conclude that although still a nascent discipline, Values-based Phenomenology offers a promising approach to reducing the gap between services and patients’ needs in clinical decision-making, and thus to improving clinical care in substance use disorders.

Barriers and Enablers to Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Medication Management: A Qualitative Investigation of Clinician and Service Users' Views

Shared decisionmaking (SDM) is a recommended health communication approach in mental health settings. Yet, implementation of SDM in psychiatric consultations discussing medication management is challenging. Insufficient attention has been given to examine the views of both clinicians and service users together about the experiences of SDM in psychiatric medication management. The purpose of this paper is to examine the views of service users, community psychiatric nurses, and psychiatrists about enablers and barriers of SDM. A thematic analysis of 30 semi structured interviews with service users, psychiatrists, and community psychiatric nurses, in a community mental health team in the UK, was conducted. A service user advisory group was involved in all phases of the research cycle, including data collection, analysis, and dissemination. The results offer a detailed contextualized account of how medication decisions are made. For psychiatrists and service user participants SDM is seen as a way of enhancing service users' engagement in and control over treatment decisions. While psychiatrists value the transactional benefits of SDM, service user participants and psychiatric nurses conceptualize SDM as a long-term endeavor embedded within therapeutic partnerships. For service users these partnerships mitigate acknowledged problems of feeling unable to be fully involved during times of crisis. This study identified a range of barriers and facilitators to SDM concerning psychiatric medications from the lived experience of service users and the professional experience of clinicians. Furthermore, it indicates new potential intervention points to support SDM in psychiatric medication decisions.

"The Doctor Says You Cannot Have [Buprenorphine]" Autonomy and Use of Prescribed or Non-Prescribed Buprenorphine

BACKGROUND

People may overcome barriers to professional buprenorphine treatment by using non-prescribed buprenorphine (NPB) to manage opioid use disorder (OUD). Little is known about how people perceive NPB differently than formal treatment. This qualitative study investigated how and why people use NPB as an alternative to formal treatment.

METHODS

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of harm reduction agencies (N = 22) who had used buprenorphine. Investigators independently coded transcribed interviews, generating themes through iterative reading and analysis of transcripts.

RESULTS

Three main factors drove decisions about prescribed and non-prescribed buprenorphine use: 1) autonomy; 2) treatment goals; and 3) negative early experiences with NPB. An overarching theme from our analysis was that participants valued autonomy in seeking to control their substance use. NPB was a valuable tool toward this goal and professional OUD treatment could impede autonomy. Participants mostly used NPB to "self-manage" OUD symptoms. Many participants had concerns about long-term buprenorphine treatment and instead used NPB over short periods of time. Several participants also reported negative experiences with NPB, including symptoms of withdrawal, which then deterred them from seeking out professional treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support prior studies showing that people use NPB to self-manage withdrawal symptoms and to reduce use of illicit opioids. Despite these benefits, participants focused on short-term goals and negative consequences were common. Increasing buprenorphine treatment engagement may require attention to patients' sense of autonomy, and also assurance that long-term treatment is safe, effective, and reliably accessible.

Longitudinal patterns of cocaine use among patients receiving injectable hydromorphone or diacetylmorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder: A growth curve modeling approach

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cocaine use is prevalent among people receiving injectable opioid agonist treatment. Investigations of cocaine use in this population have been descriptive and the potential heterogeneity existing in patterns of use have not been characterized. As such, among patients receiving injectable opioid agonist treatment, this study aimed to: 1) quantify intra- and inter-individual variation in cocaine use over 24-months and; 2) determine how predictors of interest explained this variation.

METHODS

Participants were patients receiving injectable opioid agonist treatment for opioid use disorder. Study visits were completed at baseline prior to receiving treatment, and 3,6,9,12,18, and 24 months after baseline. A multi-level regression approach to growth curve modeling was employed to estimate and explain intra- (within-person) and inter-individual (between-person) variation in cocaine use.

RESULTS

Significant intra and inter-individual variation in cocaine use was identified over 24-months. Treatment engagement was on average associated with reductions in the prior month number of days of cocaine use (range: 0-30)(Estimate (standard error): -0.05(0.02), p = 0.003). On average, men reported less cocaine use compared to women (Estimate (standard error): -5.91(1.57), p=<0.001), and participants reporting ever regularly using cocaine at baseline reported more cocaine use over 24-months compared to participants reporting never regularly using cocaine (Estimate (standard error): 4.72 (1.91), p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant reductions in cocaine use were observed and significant heterogeneity in patterns of cocaine use was identified. These heterogeneous cocaine use profiles suggest that an individualized approach to care will be critical in responding to patients' cocaine use in injectable opioid agonist treatment.

Perceptions and preferences for long-acting injectable and implantable medications in comparison to short-acting medications for opioid use disorders

Aim

Treatment for opioid use disorders has recently evolved to include long-acting injectable and implantable formulations of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Incorporating patient preferences into treatment for substance use disorders is associated with increased motivation and treatment satisfaction. This study sought to assess treatment preferences for long-acting injectable and implantable MOUD as compared to short-acting formulations among individuals with OUD.

Methods

We conducted qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with forty adults recruited from across the United States through Craigslist advertisements and flyers posted in treatment programs. Eligible participants scored a two or greater on the heroin or opioid pain reliever sections of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medications, and Other Substances (TAPS) Tool, indicative of a past-year OUD. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed.

Results

Twenty-four participants (60%) currently or previously had been prescribed MOUD. Sixteen participants (40%) expressed general opposition to MOUD, citing concerns that MOUD is purely financial gain for pharmaceutical companies and/or a "band aid" solution replacing one drug with another, rather than a path to abstinence. Some participants expressed personal preference for long-acting injectable (n = 16/40: 40%) and implantable formulations (n = 12/40: 30%) over short-acting formulations. About half of the participants were not willing to use injectables (n = 19/40: 48%) or implantables (n = 22/40: 55%), preferring short-acting formulations. Mixed evaluations of long- and short-acting MOUD focused on considerations of medication-related beliefs (privacy, concern over an embedded foreign body), the medication-related burden (convenience, provision of structure and support, medication administration, potential side effects), and medication-taking practices (potential for non-prescribed use, control over dosage, and duration of treatment).

Conclusions

Though many participants personally prefer short-acting to long-acting MOUD, some were open to including long-acting formulations in the range of options for those with OUD. Participants felt long-acting formulations may reduce medication-related burden and the risk of diversion. Conversely, participants expressed concern about invasive administration and loss of control over their treatment. Results suggest support for expanded access to a variety of formulations of MOUD. The use of shared decision making may also help patients select the formulation best aligned with their experiences, values, and treatment goals.

A Self-Reported Version of the Measurements in the Addictions for Triage and Evaluation-Q: Concurrent Validity with the MATE 2.1

INTRODUCTION

Substance abuse treatment centers require reliable and valid instruments to monitor treatment progress, to evaluate treatment effectiveness, and to initiate clinical trials. Currently the Measurements in the Addictions for Triage and Evaluation (MATE) 2.1, an instrument that serves these purposes, is considered quite lengthy and intensive, especially in the case of allocation to milder treatment intensity. Therefore, a self-reported version of the MATE-Q was designed for patients with mild to moderate substance-abuse and co-occurring problems. The aim of the present study was to assess concurrent validity with the interviewer version of the MATE (version 2.1).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected at 2 locations of a Dutch substance abuse treatment center, one location in a large city and one in a suburban area. A correlational design was employed, where each included participant completed a MATE-Q and a MATE 2.1 within 3 days or less (administered at intake, before treatment initiation). A total of 98 treatment-seeking patients were included (51.0% alcohol as a primary problem, 19.4% cannabis, 14.3% gambling and 6.1% cocaine). Measurements included the MATE-Q and the MATE 2.1. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for single measures were calculated, deploying the 2-way mixed procedure with absolute agreement. Descriptives of scores comprise means and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency.

RESULTS

For the majority (15 out of 24) of the scores ICCs were equal or above 0.7. For 93 patients (95%), the primary problem substance or problem behavior was reported correspondingly. Nine MATE-Q mean scores differed significantly from their MATE 2.1 counterparts.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

For the majority of scores, the MATE-Q has acceptable concurrent validity for the assessment of patients with mild to moderate substance abuse and co-occurring problems.

Conceptualizing patient-centered care for substance use disorder treatment: findings from a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Despite ongoing efforts aimed to improve treatment engagement for people with substance-related disorders, evidence shows modest rates of utilization as well as client-perceived barriers to care. Patient-centered care (PCC) is one widely recognized approach that has been recommended as an evidence-based practice to improve the quality of substance use disorder treatment. PCC includes four core principles: a holistic and individualized focus to care, shared decision-making and enhanced therapeutic alliance.

AIMS

This scoping review aimed to explore which PCC principles have been described and how they have defined and measured among people with substance-related disorders.

METHODS

Following the iterative stages of the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodology, empirical (from Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ISI Web of Science) and grey literature references were eligible if they focused on people accessing treatment for substance-related disorders and described PCC. Two reviewers independently screened the title/abstract and full-texts of references. Descriptive analyses and a directed content analysis were performed on extracted data.

FINDINGS

One-hundred and forty-nine references met inclusion from the 2951 de-duplicated references screened. Therapeutic alliance was the most frequent principle of PCC described by references (72%); this was consistently defined by characteristics of empathy and non-judgment. Shared decision-making was identified in 36% of references and was primarily defined by client and provider strategies of negotiation in the treatment planning process. Individualized care was described by 30% of references and included individualized assessment and treatment delivery efforts. Holistic care was identified in 23% of references; it included an integrated delivery of substance use, health and psychosocial services via comprehensive care settings or coordination. Substance use and treatment engagement outcomes were most frequently described, regardless of PCC principle.

CONCLUSIONS

This review represents a necessary first step to explore how PCC has been defined and measured for people accessing substance use disorder treatment. The directed content analysis revealed population and context-specific evidence regarding the defining characteristics of PCC-principles that can be used to further support the implementation of PCC.

The appropriateness of psychotropic medicines: an interview study of service users attending a substance misuse service in England

Background Mental health problems are common in people with substance misuse problems. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding prescribing of psychotropic medications for people with comorbid mental health and substance misuse problems. Objective To explore the views of service users attending an addiction service on the appropriateness of psychotropic medications prescribed for their co-existing mental health problems. Setting A specialist addiction service in the North of England. Method A phenomenological approach was adopted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve service users. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Main outcome measure Service users’ views concerning the appropriateness of their prescribed psychotropic medications. Results The following themes captured service users’ views on the appropriateness of their medications: benefits from medicines, entitlement to medicines, and assessment and review. Service users mostly described benefits from their medications (including those prescribed outside guideline recommendations) and there was also an awareness of the adverse effects they experienced from them. It appears that people with substance misuse problems have a particularly strong sense of their own needs and seek to influence prescribing decisions. Service users further described varied practices regarding assessment and review of their medications with evidence of regular reviews while others identified suboptimal or inadequate practices. Conclusion Most service users described improved functioning as a result of their prescribed psychotropic medications. Prescriptions that are inappropriate in terms of their usual indications may well be justified if they assist in stabilising service users and moving them on to recovery.

Preferences of Information Dissemination on Treatment for Bipolar Disorder: Patient-Centered Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND

Patient education has taken center stage in successfully shared decision making between patients and health care providers. However, little is known about how patients with bipolar disorder typically obtain information on their illness and the treatment options available to them.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to obtain the perspectives of patients with bipolar disorder and their family members on the preferred and most effectively used information channels on bipolar disorder and the available treatment options.

METHODS

We conducted nine focus groups in Montana, New Mexico, and California, in which we surveyed 84 individuals including patients with bipolar disorder and family members of patients with bipolar disorder. The participants were recruited using National Alliance on Mental Illness mailing lists and websites. Written verbatim responses to semistructured questionnaires were analyzed using summative content analysis based on grounded theory. Two annotators coded and analyzed the data on the sentence or phrase level to create themes. Relationships between demographics and information channel were also examined using the Chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

The focus group participants mentioned a broad range of information channels that were successfully used in the past and could be recommended for future information dissemination. The majority of participants used providers (74%) and internet-based resources (75%) as their main information sources. There was no association between internet use and basic demographics such as age or geographical region of the focus groups. Patients considered time constraints and the fast pace in which an overwhelming amount of information is often presented by the provider as major barriers to successful provider-patient interactions. If Web-based channels were used, the participants perceived information obtained through Web-based channels as more helpful than information received in the provider's office (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Web-based resources are increasingly used by patients with bipolar disorder and their family members to educate themselves about the disease and its treatment. Although provider-patient interactions are frequently perceived to be burdened with time constraints, Web-based information sources are considered reliable and helpful. Future research should explore how high-quality websites could be used to empower patients and improve provider-patient interactions with the goal of enhancing shared decision making between patients and providers.

A Japanese version of the Patient Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for patients with musculoskeletal disorders

Background: The Patient Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) is a self-reporting questionnaire with 12 items on a 5-point Likert scale for patient's attitude towards shared decision making but its adaptation into Japanese has not been undertaken. Objectives: To develop a Japanese version of the PABS (PABS-J) through translation into Japanese and evaluation of an appropriate scoring system and unidimensionality using Rasch analysis and test-retest reliability. Design: This study included a cross-cultural validation step and investigations of questionnaire validity and reliability. Method: One-hundred-ten patients with musculoskeletal disorders referred to physiotherapy completed the Japanese draft of the PABS before the initial session of physiotherapy. Seventy-five of the 110 participants completed the PABS twice, on a separate day. Items that violated pre-determined criteria of unidimensionality and test-retest reliability (Quadratic-weighted κ ≦ 0.4) were removed. Further, the 110 participants identified one of the four stages of readiness towards shared decision making and correlation with the score of the PABS-J was preliminarily investigated as concurrent validity. Results/Findings: Rasch analysis confirmed unidimensionality of six items and appropriateness of a 3-point scale. Moderate test-retest reliability of the PABS-J was detected (Intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.70). A statistically significant and positive but weak correlation between the PABS-J scores and the four stages of readiness towards shared decision making was detected (ρ = 0.20, P = 0.03). Conclusions: The current study demonstrated partial validity and reliability of the PABS-J with six items and 3-point scale. This questionnaire will be a foundation for further investigations attitude towards shared decision making.

Role preferences of patients with alcohol use disorders

AIMS

Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly demanded in medical decision making. SDM acknowledges patients' role preferences in decision making processes. There has been limited research on SDM and role preferences in substance use disorders; results are promising. Aim of this study was to investigate role preferences of patients with alcohol use disorders (AUD), and to identify predictors of these preferences.

METHOD

Cross-sectional data collected from June 2013 to May 2014 in four detoxification wards in Germany during a randomised controlled trial (RCT, Registration Code 01GY1114) was analysed. Of the 250 patients with AUD who were included in the RCT, data from 242 patients [65% male; mean age = 45.2 years (sd = 10.3)] were analysed. Participants' role preferences were assessed with the Control Preference Scale. Potential correlates were drawn from instruments used in the RCT; multinomial logistic regression was used.

RESULTS

90% (n = 217) of the AUD patients preferred an active or shared role in decision-making, 10% (n = 25) preferred a passive role. Patients' desire for help was associated with their role preference (OR = 3.087, p = .05). The model's goodness of fit was Nagelkerke's R² = 0.153 [χ² (24) = 25.206, p = .395].

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' preference for an active role in decision-making underscores the importance of involving patients in their treatment planning. Patients' desire for help seems to be an important determinant of paternalistic decision making. However, further research is needed to determine whether patients' role preferences are related to their behavior during their treatment referral and recovery.

A Shared Decision-Making Tool to Prevent Substance Abuse: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorder (SUD) affects over 20 million adults and costs over $700 billion annually in the United States. It is one the greatest health care challenges we face.

OBJECTIVE

This research project seeks to enhance the standard practice of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) through a mobile solution easily incorporated into primary care that will promote shared decision making and increase referral and adherence to specialty care through continued follow-up care.

METHODS

This research will conduct an Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved randomized controlled trial (RCT) in primary care and SUD specialty service providers. The RCT will recruit a total of 500 SUD patients. Recruited patients will be randomized into control and intervention arms. Both arms will take initial baseline and exit (30 days) surveys to evaluate self-reported substance use and specialty service utilization. The control arm patients will receive usual care. The intervention group patients will receive technology-enhanced SBIRT and a mobile follow-up program to track goals and substance use at home. The RCT tracks participants for 30 days after the primary care encounter. We will collect feedback from the patients during the 30 days and count the number of patients who use specialty care services in specialty care programs for tobacco, alcohol, and drug abuse (both from self-reporting and from the service providers).

RESULTS

RCT and data collection are underway. We expect to report the data results in 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

We expect that significantly more intervention group patients will receive specialty SUD care within 30 days following the SBIRT encounter at the primary care clinic compared to the control group. We also expect that the intervention group patients will report a greater reduction in substance use and a greater drop in Drug Abuse Screening Test and Addition Severity Index scores within 30 days.

Feasibility and acceptability of shared decision-making to promote alcohol behavior change among women Veterans: Results from focus groups

BACKGROUND

Although rates of unhealthy drinking are high among women Veterans with mental health comorbidities, most women Veterans with mental comorbidities who present to primary care with unhealthy drinking do not receive alcohol-related care. Barriers to alcohol-related treatment could be reduced through patient-centered approaches to care, such as shared decision-making.

AIMS

We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a telephone-delivered shared decision-making intervention for promoting alcohol behavior change in women Veterans with unhealthy drinking and co-morbid depression and/or probable post-traumatic stress disorder.

METHODS

We used 3, 2-hour focus group discussions with 19 women Veterans to identify barriers and solicit recommendations for using the intervention with women Veterans who present to primary care with unhealthy drinking and mental health comorbidities. Transcripts from the focus groups were qualitatively analyzed using template analysis.

RESULTS

Although participants perceived that the intervention was feasible and acceptable for the targeted patient population, they identified the treatment delivery modality, length of telephone sessions, and some of the option grid content as potential barriers. Facilitators included strategies for enhancing the telephone-delivered shared decision-making sessions and diversifying the treatment options contained in the option grids. Focus group feedback resulted in preliminary adaptations to the intervention that are mindful of women Veterans' individual preferences for care and realistic in the everyday context of their busy lives.

Developing an aftercare decision aid; assessing health professionals' and patients' preferences

Personalising aftercare for curatively treated breast cancer patients is expected to improve patient satisfaction with care. A patient decision aid can support women in making decisions about their aftercare trajectory, but is currently not available. The aim of this study was to assess the needs of patients and health professionals with regard to an aftercare decision aid to systematically develop such a decision aid. Focus groups with patients and individual interviews with health professionals were digitally recorded and coded using the Framework analysis. Although most patients felt few aftercare options were available to them, health professionals reported to provide various options on the patients' request. Patients reported difficulty in expressing their need for options to their health professional. Although most patients were unfamiliar with decision aids, the majority preferred a paper‐based patient decision aid, while most health professionals preferred an online tool. The practical implications for the intended patient decision aid are: that a digital tool with paper‐based element should be developed, the patient decision aid should facilitate both rational and intuitive processes and should provide insight in patients' preferences concerning aftercare to discuss these explicitly.

Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care

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

Patient-centered primary care for adults at high risk for AUDs: the Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial

BACKGROUND

Most patients with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) never receive alcohol treatment, and experts have recommended management of AUDs in primary care. The Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial was a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of a novel intervention for primary care patients at high risk for AUDs. This report describes the conceptual and scientific foundation of the CHOICE model of care, critical elements of the CHOICE trial design consistent with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), results of recruitment, and baseline characteristics of the enrolled sample.

METHODS

The CHOICE intervention is a multi-contact, extended counseling intervention, based on the Chronic Care Model, shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and evidence-based options for managing AUDs, designed to be practical in primary care. Outpatients who received care at 3 Veterans Affairs primary care sites in the Pacific Northwest and reported frequent heavy drinking (≥4 drinks/day for women; ≥5 for men) were recruited (2011-2014) into a trial in which half of the participants would be offered additional alcohol-related care from a nurse. CHOICE nurses offered 12 months of patient-centered care, including proactive outreach and engagement, repeated brief motivational interventions, monitoring with and without alcohol biomarkers, medications for AUDs, and/or specialty alcohol treatment as appropriate and per patient preference. A CHOICE nurse practitioner was available to prescribe medications for AUDs.

RESULTS

A total of 304 patients consented to participate in the CHOICE trial. Among consenting participants, 90% were men, the mean age was 51 (range 22-75), and most met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse (14%) or dependence (59%). Many participants also screened positive for tobacco use (44%), depression (45%), anxiety disorders (30-41%) and non-tobacco drug use disorders (19%). At baseline, participants had a median AUDIT score of 18 [Interquartile range (IQR) 14-24] and a median readiness to change drinking score of 5 (IQR 2.75-6.25) on a 1-10 Likert scale.

CONCLUSION

The CHOICE trial tested a patient-centered intervention for AUDs and recruited primary care patients at high risk for AUDs, with a spectrum of severity, co-morbidity, and readiness to change drinking. Trial registration The trial is registered at clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01400581).

Patient perception of methadone dose adequacy in methadone maintenance treatment: The role of perceived participation in dosage decisions

OBJECTIVE

In clinical practice, methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) entails tailoring the methadone dose to the patient's specific needs, thereby individualizing treatment. The aim of this study was to identify the independent factors that may significantly explain methadone dose adequacy from the patient's perspective.

METHOD

Secondary analysis of data collected in a treatment satisfaction survey carried out among a representative sample of MMT patients (n=122) from the region of La Rioja (Spain). As part of the original study protocol, participants completed a comprehensive battery to assess satisfaction with MMT, psychological distress, opinion of methadone as a medication, participation in dosage decisions, and perception of dose adequacy.

RESULTS

Multivariate binary logistic regression showed that the only variable independently associated with the likelihood of a patient perceiving methadone dose as inadequate was the variable perceived-participation in methadone dosage decisions (OR=0.538, 95% CI=0.349-0.828).

CONCLUSION

Patient participation in methadone dosage decisions was predictive of perceived adequacy of methadone dose beyond the contribution of other socio-demographic, clinical, and MMT variables.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patient participation in methadone dosage decision-making is valuable for developing a genuinely patient-centred MMT.

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.

Feedback from Outcome Measures and Treatment Effectiveness, Treatment Efficiency, and Collaborative Practice: A Systematic Review

Due to recent increases in the use of feedback from outcome measures in mental health settings, we systematically reviewed evidence regarding the impact of feedback from outcome measures on treatment effectiveness, treatment efficiency, and collaborative practice. In over half of 32 studies reviewed, the feedback condition had significantly higher levels of treatment effectiveness on at least one treatment outcome variable. Feedback was particularly effective for not-on-track patients or when it was provided to both clinicians and patients. The findings for treatment efficiency and collaborative practice were less consistent. Given the heterogeneity of studies, more research is needed to determine when and for whom feedback is most effective.

The relationship between child- and parent-reported shared decision making and child-, parent-, and clinician-reported treatment outcome in routinely collected child mental health services data

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) between service users and providers is increasingly being suggested as a key component of good healthcare. The aim of this research was to explore whether child- and parent-reported experience of SDM was associated with child- and parent-reported improvement in psychosocial difficulties and clinician-reported functioning at the end of treatment in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS).

METHOD

The sample comprised N = 177 children (62% female; 31% aged 6-12 and 69% aged 13-18) with a variety of mental health problems from 17 services where routinely collected data consisted of presenting problems at outset, child- and parent-reported change in symptoms between Time 1 and Time 2 (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; SDQ), clinician-reported change in functioning between Time 1 and Time 2 (Children's Global Assessment Scale; CGAS), and experience of SDM at Time 2 (as measured by responses to the Experience of Service Questionnaire; ESQ).

RESULTS

Analysis revealed that both child- and parent-reported experience of SDM were associated with higher levels of child- and parent-reported improvement in psychosocial difficulties. However, child-reported experience of SDM was only associated with higher levels of child-reported improvement when their parents also reported higher levels of SDM.

CONCLUSION

In CAMHS, involving both children and parents in decision making may contribute to enhanced treatment outcomes.

Patient Preferences and Shared Decision Making in the Treatment of Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background

Shared Decision Making (SDM) as means to the involvement of patients in medical decision making is increasingly demanded by treatment guidelines and legislation. Also, matching of patients’ preferences to treatments has been shown to be effective regarding symptom reduction. Despite promising results for patients with substance use disorders (SUD) no systematic evaluation of the literature has been provided. The aim is therefore to give a systematic overview of the literature of patient preferences and SDM in the treatment of patients with SUD.

Methods

An electronic literature search of the databases Medline, Embase, Psyndex and Clinical Trials Register was performed. Variations of the search terms substance use disorders, patient preferences and SDM were used. For data synthesis the populations, interventions and outcomes were summarized and described according to the PRISMA statement. Methodological quality of the included articles was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Results

N = 25 trials were included in this review. These were conducted between 1986 and 2014 with altogether n = 8.729 patients. Two studies found that patients with SUD preferred to be actively involved in treatment decisions. Treatment preferences were assessed in n = 18 studies, where the majority of patients preferred outpatient compared with inpatient treatment. Matching patients to preferences resulted in a reduction on substance use (n = 3 studies), but the majority of studies found no significant effect. Interventions for SDM differed across patient populations and optional therapeutic techniques.

Discussion

Patients with substance use disorders should be involved in medical treatment decisions, as patients with other health conditions. A suitable approach is Shared Decision Making, emphasizing the patients’ preferences. However, due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, results should be interpreted with caution. Further research is needed regarding SDM interventions in patient populations with substance use disorders.

A qualitative analysis of implementing shared decision making in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in the United Kingdom: Stages and facilitators

OBJECTIVES

To explore the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), and identify clinician-determined facilitators to SDM.

METHODS

Professionals from four UK CAMHS tried a range of tools to support SDM. They reflected on their experiences using plan-do-study-act log books. A total of 23 professionals completed 307 logs, which were transcribed and analysed using Framework Analysis in Atlas.Ti.

RESULTS

Three states of implementation (apprehension, feeling clunky, and integration) and three aspects of clinician behavior or approach (effort, trust, and flexibility) were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of SDM in CAMHS requires key positive clinician behaviors, including preparedness to put in effort, trust in young people, and use of the approach flexibly.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Implementation of SDM in CAMHS is effortful, and while tools may help support SDM, clinicians need to be allowed to use the tools flexibly to allow them to move from a state of apprehension through a sense of feeling "clunky" to integration in practice.

Personalised care planning for adults with chronic or long-term health conditions

BACKGROUND

Personalised care planning is a collaborative process used in chronic condition management in which patients and clinicians identify and discuss problems caused by or related to the patient's condition, and develop a plan for tackling these. In essence it is a conversation, or series of conversations, in which they jointly agree goals and actions for managing the patient's condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of personalised care planning for adults with long-term health conditions compared to usual care (i.e. forms of care in which active involvement of patients in treatment and management decisions is not explicitly attempted or achieved).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ProQuest, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials involving adults with long-term conditions where the intervention included collaborative (between individual patients and clinicians) goal setting and action planning. We excluded studies where there was little or no opportunity for the patient to have meaningful influence on goal selection, choice of treatment or support package, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of three review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were effects on physical health, psychological health, subjective health status, and capabilities for self management. Secondary outcomes included effects on health-related behaviours, resource use and costs, and type of intervention. A patient advisory group of people with experience of living with long-term conditions advised on various aspects of the review, including the protocol, selection of outcome measures and emerging findings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies involving a total of 10,856 participants. Twelve of these studies focused on diabetes, three on mental health, one on heart failure, one on end-stage renal disease, one on asthma, and one on various chronic conditions. All 19 studies included components that were intended to support behaviour change among patients, involving either face-to-face or telephone support. All but three of the personalised care planning interventions took place in primary care or community settings; the remaining three were located in hospital clinics. There was some concern about risk of bias for each of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, usually due to inadequate or unclear descriptions of research methods. Physical healthNine studies measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), giving a combined mean difference (MD) between intervention and control of -0.24% (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to -0.14), a small positive effect in favour of personalised care planning compared to usual care (moderate quality evidence).Six studies measured systolic blood pressure, a combined mean difference of -2.64 mm/Hg (95% CI -4.47 to -0.82) favouring personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The pooled results from four studies showed no significant effect on diastolic blood pressure, MD -0.71 mm/Hg (95% CI -2.26 to 0.84).We found no evidence of an effect on cholesterol (LDL-C), standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.11) (five studies) or body mass index, MD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) (four studies).A single study of people with asthma reported that personalised care planning led to improvements in lung function and asthma control. Psychological healthSix studies measured depression. We were able to pool results from five of these, giving an SMD of -0.36 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.20), a small effect in favour of personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The remaining study found greater improvement in the control group than the intervention group.Four other studies used a variety of psychological measures that were conceptually different so could not be pooled. Of these, three found greater improvement for the personalised care group than the usual care group and one was too small to detect differences in outcomes. Subjective health statusTen studies used various patient-reported measures of health status (or health-related quality of life), including both generic health status measures and condition-specific ones. We were able to pool data from three studies that used the SF-36 or SF-12, but found no effect on the physical component summary score SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.38) or the mental component summary score SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.15 to 0.28) (moderate quality evidence). Of the three other studies that measured generic health status, two found improvements related to personalised care and one did not.Four studies measured condition-specific health status. The combined results showed no difference between the intervention and control groups, SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.10) (moderate quality evidence). Self-management capabilitiesNine studies looked at the effect of personalised care on self-management capabilities using a variety of outcome measures, but they focused primarily on self efficacy. We were able to pool results from five studies that measured self efficacy, giving a small positive result in favour of personalised care planning: SMD 0.25 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.43) (moderate quality evidence).A further five studies measured other attributes that contribute to self-management capabilities. The results from these were mixed: two studies found evidence of an effect on patient activation, one found an effect on empowerment, and one found improvements in perceived interpersonal support. Other outcomesPooled data from five studies on exercise levels showed no effect due to personalised care planning, but there was a positive effect on people's self-reported ability to carry out self-care activities: SMD 0.35 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.52).We found no evidence of adverse effects due to personalised care planning.The effects of personalised care planning were greater when more stages of the care planning cycle were completed, when contacts between patients and health professionals were more frequent, and when the patient's usual clinician was involved in the process.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Personalised care planning leads to improvements in certain indicators of physical and psychological health status, and people's capability to self-manage their condition when compared to usual care. The effects are not large, but they appear greater when the intervention is more comprehensive, more intensive, and better integrated into routine care.

Information and decision-making needs among people with mental disorders: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Assessment of users' information and decision-making needs is one key step in the development of decision-support interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To identify patients' information and decision-making needs as a pre-requisite for the development of high-quality web-based patient decision aids (PtDAs) for common mental disorders.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A systematic MEDLINE search for papers published until December 2012 was conducted, and reference lists of included articles and relevant reviews were searched.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Original studies containing data on information or decision-making needs of adults with depression, anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, alcohol-related disorders and schizophrenia were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was performed using a standardized form, and data synthesis was conducted using a theory-based deductive approach by two independent reviewers. Studies were quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies were included focusing on information needs or the identification of decisions patients with depression and schizophrenia were facing. No studies were found for the other mental disorders. Overall, seven information needs categories were identified with the topics 'basic facts', 'treatment' and 'coping' being of major relevance. Six decision categories were identified of which decisions on 'medication' and 'treatment setting' were most often classified.

CONCLUSIONS

This review reveals that patients with schizophrenia and depression show extensive information and decision-making needs. The identified needs can initially inform the design of PtDAs for schizophrenia and depression. However, there is an urgent need to investigate information and decision-making needs among patients with other mental disorders.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.