Exploring the experiences of client involvement in medication decisions using a shared decision making model: results of a qualitative study

Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Shared Decision Making in Differentiated Antiretroviral Therapy Service in Northwest Ethiopia: Implications for Policy and Practice

Background. Shared decision making (SDM) for patients enrolling in differentiated antiretroviral therapy (DART) is crucial. Empirical evidence is lacking regarding factors promoting or hindering SDM implementation in DART provision in Ethiopia. Hence, this study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM for patients enrolled in DART in Northwest Ethiopia. Methods. A qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews among 17 patients and 15 providers at health facilities providing DART service was conducted. The MAXQDA version 20 software was used for inductive coding. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results. Ten themes emerged at 4 levels related to SDM in the provision of DART: patient, provider, organizational, and health system. At the patient level, 1) trust in providers (facilitator) and 2) patient's level of education (barrier) emerged as themes. At the provider level, 3) lack of familiarity with DART models (barrier) and 4) patient-provider relationship (barrier and facilitator) were emerged themes. At the organizational level, 5) workload (barrier) and 6) resources (barrier and facilitator) emerged as themes. At the health system level, 7) availability of DART models (facilitator), 8) not involving providers while initiating DART models (barrier), 9) other providers' involvement (facilitator), and 10) presence of other implementing partners (barrier) emerged as themes. Conclusions. Numerous barriers and facilitators influence the implementation of SDM in the provision of DART. Based on these findings, the following steps are recommended. Providing access to patient decision aids shall be in place to assist patients in making decisions about their preferred DART models. Health care workers shall be trained, and patients shall be given education to enhance the SDM process. Policy makers and program managers shall consider the resource context (training and size of human resources and convenience of rooms) for the delivery of ART service to have an appropriate implementation of SDM in clinical practice.

Highlights

Shared decision making in DART is influenced by various barriers and facilitators present at the patient, provider, organizational, and health system levels.Patients need education, and health care staff need regular training to improve SDM in DART service provision.Patient access to decision support tools that aid in the selection of the preferred DART model in health facilities is critical.Policy makers and program managers shall consider the availability of adequate and trained human resources as well as provide adequate space and private rooms for SDM in the implementation of DART.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

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

Peer-Facilitated Decision Making in Mental Health: Promises, Pitfalls, and Recommendations for Research and Practice

Recognition has grown that peer support workers serve an important role in facilitating decision making about treatment and recovery among people with mental health conditions. This article provides examples of peer-facilitated decision support interventions in the literature, discusses promises and potential pitfalls associated with peers serving in decision support roles, and offers recommendations for research and practice. Examples were selected from the literature on decision support interventions for people with serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression. Promises, pitfalls, and recommendations were informed by this research and by the literature on lived experience perspectives, the helper-therapy principle, and reported barriers to and facilitators of peers assisting with decision making. According to the included studies, peers may facilitate decision making in several ways (e.g., by asking service users about their goals or preferences, assisting them with using decision support tools, sharing stories, and facilitating access to information and resources). Peer-facilitated decision support may be associated with positive decision making and health outcomes for service users and peer support workers. However, providers need to carefully consider barriers to implementation of this support, such as inadequate resourcing, poor integration, and compromising of peer support values.

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.

Mental health clinician training and experiences with utilization of advance statements in Victoria, Australia

Advance statements, advance directives, or psychiatric wills are a key component of a shift to mental healthcare that promotes autonomy and choice and aims to reduce restrictive and coercive care practices in mental health treatment settings. The use of advance statements has gained momentum to provide a means for individuals to detail clear preferences for mental health treatment. This paper uses a qualitative descriptive design to explore the experiences of clinicians (n = 15) implementing advance statements in the state of Victoria, Australia, a region that introduced advance statements as part of an overhaul of mental health legislation in 2014. The study, reported using the COREQ framework, found two key themes after analysis: experiences of advance statement training, with the availability and quality of training and training as a driver of change emerging as sub-themes, and experiences of advance statements in practice, with participants providing narratives of the barriers and facilitators to successful advance statement implementation. We recommend that clinician and service user experiences of advance statement implementation are further explored to identify existing and emerging barriers to implementation of these tools, which are crucial to achieve autonomy and choice for individuals receiving mental healthcare.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Internet-based interventions to support recovery and self-management: A scoping review of their use by mental health service users and providers together

BACKGROUND

Internet-based interventions can make self-management and recovery-oriented information and tools more accessible for people experiencing severe mental illness, including psychosis. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and describe emerging joint uses of these Internet-based interventions by service users experiencing psychosis and mental health workers. It also investigated how using these Internet-based interventions influenced interactions between service users and workers and whether recovery-oriented working practices were elicited.

METHODS

A scoping review method was used. Iterative review stages included identifying the review question, a comprehensive search including searching six electronic databases to locate relevant studies, selecting studies, charting the data, and collating and reporting the results. Rigour of the scoping review was enhanced by using an appraisal tool to evaluate the quality of included studies, and by using a published template for systematic description of interventions.

RESULTS

Fifteen papers about eleven Internet-based interventions that focused on self-management and/or recovery were identified. Interventions were web-based, mobile-device based, or both. The eleven interventions were used by service users either with their usual mental health workers, or with mental health workers employed in a research project. Emerging evidence suggested that jointly using an Internet-based intervention could support a positive sense of working together. However, mismatched expectations and poor integration of Internet-based interventions into service systems could also negatively influence interactions, leading to mistrust. The interventions demonstrated potential to elicit recognised recovery-oriented practices, specifically understanding service users' values and supporting their goal striving.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Internet-based interventions focused on self-management and recovery in mental health services by service users and workers jointly demonstrates potential to support working together and recovery-oriented practice. Given that the quality of relationships is critical in recovery-oriented practice, greater focus on human support in Internet-based interventions is needed in future research and practice.

Implementation and Use of a Client-Facing Web-Based Shared Decision-Making System (MyCHOIS-CommonGround) in Two Specialty Mental Health Clinics

Electronic shared-decision making programs may provide an assistive technology to support physician-patient communication. This mixed methods study examined use of a web-based shared decision-making program (MyCHOIS-CommonGround) by individuals receiving specialty mental health services, and identified qualitative factors influencing adoption during the first 18 months of implementation in two Medicaid mental health clinics. T-tests and χ2 analyses were conducted to assess differences in patient use between sites. Approximately 80% of patients in both clinics created a MyCHOIS-CommonGround user profile, but marked differences emerged between clinics in patients completing shared decision-making reports (79% vs. 28%, χ2(1) = 109.92, p < .01) and average number of reports (7.20 vs. 3.60, t = - 3.64, p < .01). Results suggest high penetration of computer-based programs in specialty mental health services is possible, but clinic implementation factors can influence patient use including leadership commitment, peer staff funding to support the program, and implementation strategy, most notably integration of the program within routine clinical workflow.

Supported Decision-Making: The Expectations Held by People With Experience of Mental Illness

Supported decision-making (SDM) is a principle guiding mental health service provision, which aims to improve people's ability to make informed decisions about their care. Understanding diverse individual needs is vital to its success. Based on 29 narrative interviews with people diagnosed with mental illness in Australia, we examine how participants reflected on their own experiences of SDM. We find that participants' conceptualization of mental health expertise, their own experiences and sense of agency, and their varying needs for dependence and independence influenced their relationships with mental health practitioners. These factors in turn shaped their expectations about SDM. Four narrative positions emerged: the "Inward Expert," the "Outward Entrustor," the "Self-Aware Observer," and the "Social Integrator." These positionings influenced the type or style of support that participants expected and considered most useful. Our findings are relevant to developing effective approaches to SDM that take into account service users' needs and preferences.

Qualitative systematic review of barriers and facilitators to patient-involved antipsychotic prescribing

BACKGROUND

Despite policy and practice mandates for patient involvement, people with serious mental illness often feel marginalised in decisions about antipsychotic medication. Aims To examine stakeholder perspectives of barriers and facilitators to involving people with serious mental illness in antipsychotic prescribing decisions.

METHOD

Systematic thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

Synthesis of 29 studies identified the following key influences on involvement: patient's capability, desire and expectation for involvement, organisational context, and the consultation setting and processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal patient involvement in antipsychotic decisions demands that individual and contextual barriers are addressed. There was divergence in perceived barriers to involvement identified by patients and prescribers. For example, patients felt that lack of time in consultations was a barrier to involvement, something seldom raised by prescribers, who identified organisational barriers. Patients must understand their rights to involvement and the value of their expertise. Organisational initiatives should mandate prescriber responsibility to overcome barriers to involvement. Declaration of interest None.

Development of a Shared Decision Making Model in a Community Mental Health Center

Shared Decision Making (SDM) is an essential component of recovery oriented treatment for clients with severe and persistent mental illnesses. SDM has been found to be effective in improving outcome of treatment of non-psychiatric ailments, and studies of SDM in community mental health settings are limited. We designed and implemented a low tech SDM program in a non-academic community mental health center and evaluated the outcome on decisional certainty and satisfaction with services. The results suggest that SDM can be effectively integrated with evidence based psychiatric rehabilitation practices utilizing already existing resources.

Consumer Outcomes After Implementing CommonGround as an Approach to Shared Decision Making

OBJECTIVE

The authors examined consumer outcomes before and after implementing CommonGround, a computer-based shared decision-making program.

METHODS

Consumers with severe mental illness (N=167) were interviewed prior to implementation and 12 and 18 months later to assess changes in active treatment involvement, symptoms, and recovery-related attitudes. Providers also rated consumers on level of treatment involvement.

RESULTS

Most consumers used CommonGround at least once (67%), but few used the program regularly. Mixed-effects regression analyses showed improvement in self-reported symptoms and recovery attitudes. Self-reported treatment involvement did not change; however, for a subset of consumers with the same providers over time (N=83), the providers rated consumers as more active in treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds to the growing literature on tools to support shared decision making, showing the potential benefits of CommonGround for improving recovery outcomes. More work is needed to better engage consumers in CommonGround and to test the approach with more rigorous methods.

From providing a service to being of service: advances in person-centred care in mental health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores the concept of person-centred care, giving particular attention to its application in mental health and its relationship to recovery. It then outlines a framework for understanding the variety of approaches that have been used to operationalize person-centred care, focusing particularly on shared decision-making and self-directed care, two practices that have significant implications for mental health internationally.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite growing recognition of person-centred care as an essential component of recovery-orientated practice, the levels of uptake of shared decision-making and self-directed care in mental health remain low. The most significant barrier appears to be the challenge presented to service providers by one of the key principles of person-centred care, namely empowerment.

SUMMARY

Shared decision-making and self-directed support, two practices based upon the principles of person-centred care, have the potential for being effective tools for recovery. Full engagement of clinicians is crucial for their successful uptake into practice. More research is needed to address both outcomes and implementation.

Supporting shared decision making beyond consumer-prescriber interactions: Initial development of the CommonGround fidelity scale

Shared decision-making has become a central tenet of recovery-oriented, person-centered mental health care, yet the practice is not always transferred to the routine psychiatric visit. Supporting the practice at the system level, beyond the interactions of consumers and medication prescribers, is needed for successful adoption of shared decision-making. CommonGround is a systemic approach, intended to be part of a larger integration of shared decision-making tools and practices at the system level. We discuss the organizational components that CommonGround uses to facilitate shared decision-making, and we present a fidelity scale to assess how well the system is being implemented.

Predictors of shared decision making and level of agreement between consumers and providers in psychiatric care

The purpose of this study was to quantitatively examine elements of shared decision making (SDM), and to establish empirical evidence for factors correlated with SDM and the level of agreement between consumer and provider in psychiatric care. Transcripts containing 128 audio-recorded medication check-up visits with eight providers at three community mental health centers were rated using the Shared Decision Making scale, adapted from Braddock's Informed Decision Making Scale (Braddock et al. 1997, 1999, 2008). Multilevel regression analyses revealed that greater consumer activity in the session and greater decision complexity significantly predicted the SDM score. The best predictor of agreement between consumer and provider was "exploration of consumer preference," with a four-fold increase in full agreement when consumer preferences were discussed more completely. Enhancing active consumer participation, particularly by incorporating consumer preferences in the decision making process appears to be an important factor in SDM.