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

Assessing the Psychometric Properties of the Illness Management and Recovery Scale: A Systematic Review Using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN)

The Illness Management and Recovery Scale (IMR-S) is based on the IMR program, developed to assess the recovery process for people with severe mental disorders by considering the perceptions of clients and clinicians involved in it. The aim of this study was to analyze the psychometric properties of the IMR-S so as to determine the reliability and suitability of its scores for evaluating recovery. Two coders searched five databases for studies, published between January 2004 and May 2023, that describe the psychometric assessment of the IMR-S. Studies were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist. Finally, 46 papers were included. Methodological quality was very good for most of the studies that provide information on internal validity, and limited for those that report on responsiveness. Measurement properties were positive for convergent validity and measurement error. The quality of evidence was high for structural validity studies. Although this study only includes research published in English and may have overlooked certain psychometric properties evaluated in studies published in other languages, our findings suggest that the IMR-S is a valid and reliable instrument, demonstrating its potential to offer guidance for clinical practice.

Communication and Activation in Pain to Enhance Relationships and Treat Pain with Equity (COOPERATE): Rationale, study design, methods, and sample characteristics

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is associated with profound negative effects, and racial disparities are well-documented in chronic pain treatment. In addition, Black patients report poorer communication with providers and exhibit lower levels of patient activation (self-management self-efficacy) than White patients. Although the causes of healthcare disparities are complex and require intervention at multiple levels, empowering patients is one critical path to achieving health equity. The current study is a coaching intervention focused on increasing patient activation and building communication skills for Black patients with chronic pain.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, 250 Black patients with chronic pain were randomized to either the coaching intervention or an attention control arm. Intervention patients attended 6 telephone-delivered individual coaching sessions over 12 weeks. Coaching focused on clarifying and prioritizing goals and on communication skills, such as agenda setting. The primary outcome is patient activation. Secondary outcomes include communication self-efficacy, pain intensity and interference, and psychological functioning.

DISCUSSION

Having the knowledge and confidence to participate in one's pain care, coupled with the skills needed to effectively communicate with providers, is essential to optimize chronic pain care. This is particularly important for Black patients who often experience lower quality pain care. Interventions such as COOPERATE hold promise for helping patients to acquire the requisite tools to take greater control of their chronic pain care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, # NCT03562793.

Personalized care planning and shared decision making in collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care is an evidence-based approach to improving outcomes for common mental disorders in primary care. Efforts are underway to broadly implement the collaborative care model, yet the extent to which this model promotes person-centered mental health care has been little studied. The aim of this study was to describe practices related to two patient and family engagement strategies-personalized care planning and shared decision making-within collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders in primary care.

METHODS

We conducted an update of a 2012 Cochrane review, which involved searches in Cochrane CCDAN and CINAHL databases, complemented by additional database, trial registry, and cluster searches. We included programs evaluated in a clinical trials targeting adults or youth diagnosed with depressive or anxiety disorders, as well as sibling reports related to these trials. Pairs of reviewers working independently selected the studies and data extraction for engagement strategies was guided by a codebook. We used narrative synthesis to report on findings.

RESULTS

In total, 150 collaborative care programs were analyzed. The synthesis showed that personalized care planning or shared decision making were practiced in fewer than half of programs. Practices related to personalized care planning, and to a lesser extent shared decision making, involved multiple members of the collaborative care team, with care managers playing a pivotal role in supporting patient and family engagement. Opportunities for quality improvement were identified, including fostering greater patient involvement in collaborative goal setting and integrating training and decision aids to promote shared decision making.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that personalized care planning and shared decision making could be more fully integrated within collaborative care programs for depression and anxiety disorders. Their absence in some programs is a missed opportunity to spread person-centered mental health practices in primary care.

Provider Perspectives on Implementing Shared Decision Making for PTSD Treatment in VA Primary Care

Shared decision making is an important implementation "pull" strategy for increasing uptake of evidence-based mental health practices. In this qualitative study, we explored provider perspectives on implementing shared decision making at the point of mental health treatment initiation using a publicly available, patient-facing decision support tool for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 mental health providers (psychiatrists, nurses, psychologists, and social workers) working in one of five VA primary care clinics. Interviewed were analyzed using thematic analysis. Provider were enthusiastic about using decision aids as a source of high quality information that could improve patient experience and confidence in treatment. However, providers had concerns about decision aid accessibility, time constraints to conduct shared decision making in-session, and patient motivation to engage in shared decision making. Providers stated they would prefer to use shared decision making with patients that they felt were most likely to follow through with treatment. While providers believed that shared decision making could improve PTSD treatment planning, they thought it most appropriate for patients with the highest levels of motivation and fewest barriers to care. These beliefs may limit widespread adoption and reflect missed opportunities to reach difficult-to-engage patients.

How Shared Is Shared Decision Making? Reaching the Full Potential of Patient-Clinician Collaboration in Mental Health

Shared decision making in mental health is a priority for stakeholders, but faces significant implementation barriers, particularly in settings intended to serve people with serious mental illnesses (SMI). As a result, current levels of shared decision making are low. We highlight these barriers and propose that a novel paradigm, collaborative decision making, will offer conceptual and practical solutions at the systemic and patient/clinician level. Collaborative decision making is tailored for populations like people with SMI and other groups who experience chronic and complex symptoms, along with power imbalances within health systems. Advancing from shared decision making to collaborative decision making clarifies the mission of the model: to facilitate an empowering and recovery-oriented decision-making process that assigns equal power and responsibility to patients and clinicians; to improve alignment of treatment decisions with patient values and priorities; to increase patient trust and confidence in clinicians and the treatment process; and, in the end, to improve treatment engagement, satisfaction, and outcomes. The primary purpose of collaborative decision making is to increase values-aligned care, therefore prioritizing inclusion of patient values, including cultural values and quality of life-related outcomes. Given the broad and constantly changing context of treatment and care for many people with SMI (and also other groups), this model is dynamic and continuously evolving, ready for use across diverse contexts. Implementation of collaborative decision making includes increasing patient knowledge but also patient power, comfort, and confidence. It is one tool to reshape patient-clinician and patient-system relationships and to increase access to value-aligned care for people with SMI and other groups.

A qualitative emancipatory inquiry into relationships between people with mental disorders and health professionals

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: A therapeutic alliance with people with mental disorders could help increase the efficacy of treatment. The paradigm shift from a paternalistic model to one that respects the person's autonomy has led to professionals accepting the active role of people with mental disorders making decisions that affect their treatment. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: People with mental disorders perceive paternalistic and stigmatizing attitudes from health professionals, and they do not feel involved in decisions about their health, which can render effective therapeutic alliances difficult. The findings reveal that although people in Mediterranean countries are used to paternalistic treatment from health professionals due to cultural factors, people with mental disorders are increasingly critical of how they are treated and demand greater autonomy and respect in the decision to undergo drug therapy. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: In their interactions with people with mental disorders, health professionals should include efforts aimed at improving shared decision-making capabilities and avoiding paternalistic or stigmatizing attitudes. ABSTRACT: Introduction A therapeutic alliance with people is essential for the efficacy of treatments. However, the traditional paternalistic values of the Mediterranean society may be incompatible with patient autonomy. Aim To explore the therapeutic relationship from the perspective of people diagnosed with mental disorders with health professionals, including nurses. Methods This emancipatory research was performed through focus groups, with people with mental disorders who had a variety of diagnoses and experiences of acute and community-based mental health services and other healthcare services. Data were analysed using the content analysis method. Results Four main themes emerged: stereotypes and prejudice; quality of interactions and treatment; emotional and behavioural impacts; and demands. Discussion According to the participants' descriptions, health professionals are not exempt from prejudice against persons with psychiatric diagnoses. They reported experiencing abuse of power, malpractice, and overmedication. Thus, in the Mediterranean culture, professional attitudes may represent a barrier for an appropriate therapeutic alliance, and people with mental disorders do not feel involved in making decisions about their health. Implications for practice Knowing how people with mental disorders perceive their interactions with health professionals and the effects is necessary to move the care model towards more symmetric relationships that facilitate a therapeutic alliance.

Chinese mental health professionals' perceptions of shared decision-making regarding people diagnosed with schizophrenia: A qualitative study

The implementation of shared decision-making regarding people diagnosed with schizophrenia is limited, although it is reported to have a positive impact on improving treatment adherence, therapeutic relationships and saving medical costs. The successful implementation of it is mainly dependent on the active engagement of mental health professionals. This study aims to identify mental health professionals' perceptions of shared decision-making regarding people diagnosed with schizophrenia in collectivist cultures such as Chinese culture. A qualitative descriptive approach was used, involving ten individual interviews with psychiatrists and four focus groups with twenty-three mental health nurses from the psychiatry department of a tertiary hospital in mainland China. An inductive thematic approach was used to analyze the data. Two main themes with five subthemes generated: willingness to engage in shared decision-making and perceiving shared decision-making as unachievable. The last theme included five subthemes: (i) deference to authority, (ii) tension between family decision-making and patient autonomy, (iii) uncertainty of trusting therapeutic relationships, (iv) implicit persuasion and (v) insufficient consultation time. Patients often lack opportunity and support to engage in decision-making. Mental health nurses in other countries need to be aware that Chinese patients and patients with a similar background are not knowledgeable about or value shared decision-making to the extent that other countries might. They need to evaluate and support them, including encouraging them to engage in decision-making as well as providing appropriate information. Mental health nurses need to collaborate with patients and their families to achieve patient-centred care when family involvement is expected.

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.

Perceptions of shared decision-making in severe mental illness: An integrative review

WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT SHARED DECISION-MAKING?: There is increasing evidence of the positive impact of shared decision-making on health outcomes. There has been little exploration of shared decision-making regarding people diagnosed with serious mental illness from the perspectives of key stakeholders including consumers, families and mental health professionals. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Consumers show variability in the preference for their involvement. Most stakeholders acknowledge the importance of family involvement. MHPs should share the responsibility and right to facilitate consumer involvement. There is bidirectional association between shared decision-making and therapeutic relationships. The practice of shared decision-making is related to multiple factors, and one main perceived barrier is time. The majority of studies are from Western countries. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Elicit consumer preferences and establish a collaborative therapeutic relationship. Encourage and engage families in treatment decision-making. Inter-professional collaboration should be integrated into shared decision-making. It might require lengthier consultation time. Studies in non-Western countries are needed to fully understand the impact of culture on shared decision-making. Abstract Introduction Shared decision-making (SDM) has been broadly advocated in health services and constitutes an important component of patient-centred care and relationship-based care. Aim To review available literature related to perceptions of key stakeholders about shared decision-making in serious mental illness. Method An integrative review was conducted through a search of four online databases from January 2012 to June 2019. Results Forty-six articles were included. Six themes were generated from the data analysis: (a) dynamic preferences for SDM, (b) various stakeholders are rarely involved, (c) SDM is not routinely implemented, (d) multiple facilitators and barriers to SDM, (e) SDM and therapeutic relationships interact, (f) SDM has a promising impact on health outcomes. Discussion Overall, most stakeholders have recognized the importance and flexibility of SDM in serious mental illness, although it is not routine in mental health service. Consumer preferences show variability in their involvement. Most stakeholders acknowledged the importance of family involvement to treatment decision-making. There are several significant challenges to practice SDM. It may require extended consultation times and increasing empirical evidence regarding the SDM outcomes, as well as integrating inter-professional collaboration into SDM. Most studies were conducted in Western culture. Implications for practice Mental health nurses should elicit consumer preferences and establish a collaborative therapeutic relationship. Encourage and engage families in treatment decision-making when consumers prefer their families to be involved. Inter-professional collaboration should be integrated into shared decision-making. The practice of shared decision-making might need extended consultation time and more robust evidence about the outcome of shared decision-making. Studies in non-Western cultures are needed to fully understand cultural issues of shared decision-making.

Patient Involvement in Decision-Making: An Important Parameter for Better Patient Experience-An Observational Study (STROBE Compliant)

Background and Aim:

Preferences of service users is an important consideration for developing health-care services. This study aimed to assess the experiences of the patients with substance use disorders who were admitted to a tertiary health-care facility in India.

Method:

This cross-sectional sectional study recruited adult inpatients who stayed for a period of 7 days or more. The Picker Patient Experience questionnaire (PPE-15) was used to gather information about the views of the patients about the care received at the center.

Results:

Responses were available from 113 inpatients. Majority of the participants were males and were dependent on opioids. The experience was generally positive about being treated with respect and dignity and access to information. The participants were most satisfied with opportunity being given to discuss anxiety and fear about the condition or treatment (91.2% positive response) and least satisfied with differences in responses from doctors and nurses (43.4% positive response). Further attention seemed desired about communication with the staff and patients’ involvement in their own treatment-related decision-making.

Conclusion:

Efforts need to be made to involve patients in their own treatment-related decision-making and to improve communication with the treatment team. This might lead to better involvement in treatment process, which could enhance the treatment outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Shared Decision Making for Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services Before Discharge from Psychiatric Hospitals

Shared decision making (SDM) is an effective health communication model designed to facilitate patient engagement in treatment decision making. In mental health, SDM has been applied and evaluated for medications decision making but less for its contribution to personal recovery and rehabilitation in psychiatric settings. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the effect of SDM in choosing community psychiatric rehabilitation services before discharge from psychiatric hospitalization. A pre-post non-randomized design with two consecutive inpatient cohorts, SDM intervention (N = 51) and standard care (N = 50), was applied in two psychiatric hospitals in Israel. Participants in the intervention cohort reported greater engagement and knowledge after choosing rehabilitation services and greater services use at 6-to-12-month follow-up than those receiving standard care. No difference was found for rehospitalization rate. Two significant interaction effects indicated greater improvement in personal recovery over time for the SDM cohort. SDM can be applied to psychiatric rehabilitation decision making and can help promote personal recovery as part of the discharge process.

Patients with schizophrenia assessing psychiatrists' communication skills

Communication plays a central role in mental health care. Yet, studies fail to address the adequacy of psychiatrists' communication according to patients' needs. We examined how patients with schizophrenia assess their psychiatrists' communication skills, inspecting the importance that these aspects have for patients. Thirty patients with schizophrenia filled the Communication Assessment Tool after the appointment with their psychiatrists. An external observer also rated the videotaped appointments using the same instrument. Patients' mean rating of their psychiatrists' communication was 4.28 (mean proportion of excellent, "5" scores, was 57.4%). "Treated me with respect" received the highest mean, whereas "Encouraged me to ask questions" received the lowest. The assessment by the external observer was concordant, though lower (mean = 3.39) than patients'. Psychiatrists' communication skills correlated positively with the importance that patients gave to the respective communication aspects (overall mean importance = 2.77). Main discrepancies were related with "Understood my concerns" and "Involved me in decisions". Patients who were non-married, with higher education level and in medical treatment for less time gave significantly higher scores to psychiatrists' communication. Patients with schizophrenia consider clinical communication important and their psychiatrists' communication adequate. Room for improvement exists, namely regarding more elicitation of patients' health concerns and involvement in the encounter.