Improving general practitioners' interviewing skills in managing patients with depression and anxiety: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Psychological experience and coping strategies of pregnant women with acute pancreatitis: a qualitative descriptive study

BACKGROUND

To clarify the psychological experience and coping strategies in patients with acute pancreatitis in pregnancy (APIP) and propose interventional measures to improve pregnancy outcomes in these women. With an increasing trend of pregnant women in advanced ages and multiparous women, the incidence of APIP has significantly increased. Pregnancy accompanied by concurrent pancreatitis may subject these women to notable psychological stress, which is a factor that has been infrequently reported in previous studies.

METHODS

APIP patients were interviewed from December 2020 to June 2021. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews based on an outline, including six questions. The interviews were recorded and analyzed using qualitative content analysis until data saturation was reached.

RESULTS

Ten APIP patients were interviewed and four themes were identified, including excessive psychological burden, uncomfortable experience, urgent requirement for adequate medical resources, and importance of social support.

CONCLUSION

Patients with APIP suffer from significant psychological stress due to their medical conditions and management. They desired adequate medical resources and social support. The local health department, hospital administrators, and medical staff should understand the psychological requirements and provide adequate healthcare and education that are easily accessible to these APIP patients. In addition, family support should also be encouraged to promote APIP patients' recovery.

Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Educational meetings are used widely by health personnel to provide continuing medical education and to promote implementation of innovations or translate new knowledge to change practice within healthcare systems. Previous reviews have concluded that educational meetings can result in small changes in behaviour, but that effects vary considerably. Investigations into which characteristics of educational meetings might lead to greater impact have yielded varying results, and factors that might explain heterogeneity in effects remain unclear. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

• To assess the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and healthcare outcomes • To investigate factors that might explain the heterogeneity of these effects SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, Science Citation Index Expanded (ISI Web of Knowledge), and Social Sciences Citation Index (last search in November 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised trials examining the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and patient outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence (GRADE) and discussed with a second review author. We included studies in the primary analysis that reported baseline data and that we judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias. For each comparison of dichotomous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as risk difference adjusted for baseline compliance. We expressed adjusted risk difference values as percentages, and we noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. For continuous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as per cent change relative to the control group mean post test, adjusted for baseline performance; we expressed values as percentages and noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. We report means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and, when appropriate, medians and interquartile ranges to facilitate comparisons to previous versions of this review. We analysed professional and patient outcomes separately and analysed 22 variables that were hypothesised a priori to explain heterogeneity. We explored heterogeneity by using univariate meta-regression and by inspecting violin plots.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 215 studies involving more than 28,167 health professionals, including 142 new studies for this update. Educational meetings as the single intervention or the main component of a multi-faceted intervention compared with no intervention • Probably slightly improve compliance with desired practice when compared with no intervention (65 comparisons, 7868 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 6.79%, 95% CI 6.62% to 6.97%; median 4.00%; interquartile range 0.29% to 13.00%); 28 comparisons, 2577 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 44.36%, 95% CI 41.98% to 46.75%; median 20.00%; interquartile range 6.00% to 65.00%)) • Probably slightly improve patient outcomes compared with no intervention (15 comparisons, 2530 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 3.30%, 95% CI 3.10% to 3.51%; median 0.10%; interquartile range 0.00% to 4.00%); 28 comparisons, 2294 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 8.35%, 95% CI 7.46% to 9.24%; median 2.00%; interquartile range -1.00% to 21.00%)) The certainty of evidence for this comparison is moderate. Educational meetings alone compared with other interventions • May improve compliance with desired practice when compared with other interventions (6 studies, 1402 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 9.99%, 95% CI 9.47% to 10.52%; median 16.5%; interquartile range 0.80% to 16.50%); 2 studies, 72 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 12.00%, 95% CI 9.16% to 14.84%; median 12.00%; interquartile range 0.00% to 24.00%)) No studies met the inclusion criteria for patient outcome measurements. The certainty of evidence for this comparison is low. Interactive educational meetings compared with didactic (lecture-based) educational meetings • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (3 studies, 370 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 192 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 54 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low Any other comparison of different formats and durations of educational meetings • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (1 study, 19 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 20 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 113 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low. Factors that might explain heterogeneity of effects Meta-regression suggests that larger estimates of effect are associated with studies judged to be at high risk of bias, with studies that had unit of analysis errors, and with studies in which the unit of analysis was the provider rather than the patient. Improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with: shorter meetings; poor baseline compliance; better attendance; shorter follow-up; professionals provided with additional take-home material; explicit building of educational meetings on theory; targeting of low- versus high-complexity behaviours; targeting of outcomes with high versus low importance; goal of increasing rather than decreasing behaviour; teaching by opinion leaders; and use of didactic versus interactive teaching methods. Pre-specified exploratory analyses of behaviour change techniques suggest that improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with use of a greater number of behaviour change techniques; goal-setting; provision of feedback; provision for social comparison; and provision for social support. Compliance may be decreased by the use of follow-up prompts, skills training, and barrier identification techniques.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no intervention, educational meetings as the main component of an intervention probably slightly improve professional practice and, to a lesser extent, patient outcomes. Educational meetings may improve compliance with desired practice to a greater extent than other kinds of behaviour change interventions, such as text messages, fees, or office systems. Our findings suggest that multi-strategy approaches might positively influence the effects of educational meetings. Additional trials of educational meetings compared with no intervention are unlikely to change the review findings; therefore we will not further update this review comparison in the future. However, we note that randomised trials comparing different types of education are needed.

Simulation in psychiatry for medical doctors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Most medical doctors are likely to work with patients experiencing mental health conditions. However, educational opportunities for medical doctors to achieve professional development in the field of psychiatry are often limited. Simulation training in psychiatry may be a useful tool to foster this development.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry for medical students, postgraduate trainees and medical doctors.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched eight electronic databases and trial registries up to 31 August 2018. We manually searched key journals and the reference lists of selected studies. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled studies and single group pre- and post-test studies. Our main outcomes were based on Kirkpatrick levels. We included data only from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using random-effects models.

RESULTS

From 46 571 studies identified, we selected 163 studies and combined 27 RCTs. Interventions included simulation by role-play (n = 69), simulated patients (n = 72), virtual reality (n = 22), manikin (n = 5) and voice simulation (n = 2). Meta-analysis found significant differences at immediate post-tests for simulation compared with active and inactive control groups for attitudes (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.73 [I²  = 0.0%] and SMD = 0.28, 95% CI 0.04-0.53 [I²  = 52.0%], respectively), skills (SMD = 1.37, 95% CI 0.56-2.18 [I²  = 93.0%] and SMD = 1.49, 95% CI 0.39-2.58 [I²  = 93.0%], respectively), knowledge (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI 0.57-1.88 [I²  = 0.0%] and SMD = 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-1.30 [I²  = 80.0%], respectively), and behaviours (SMD = 1.07, 95% CI 0.49-1.65 [I²  = 68.0%] and SMD = 0.45, 95% CI 0.11-0.79 [I²  = 41.0%], respectively). Significant differences in terms of patient benefit and doctors' behaviours and skills were found at the 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite heterogeneity in methods and simulation interventions, our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry training.

HIV and Depression: Examining Medical Students Clinical Skills

Major depression is a prevalent psychiatric disorder among people living with HIV (PWH). Major depression symptoms, including suicidal ideation, can hinder clinical care engagement and anti-retroviral treatment adherence. Research suggests that inquiry about major depression symptomatology and suicidal ideation should be standard practice when offering primary care services to PWH. However, studies examining depression and suicidal ideation inquiry are scarce. This study's aim was to describe medical students' clinical skills for dealing with major depression symptomatology and suicidal ideation among PWH in Puerto Rico. A total of 100 4th year medical students participated in a Standardized Patient simulation with a trained actor posing as a PWH and with a previous major depression diagnosis. One-way frequency tables were used to characterize the sample and the percentage of each observed clinical skill. Two key findings stem from these results only 10% of the participants referred the patient to psychological/psychiatric treatment, and only 32% inquired about suicidal ideation. Our findings highlight the need for enhancing medical students' competencies regarding mental health issues, particularly when providing services to at risk populations such as PWH within primary care settings.

[Effectively communicate active listening : Comparison of two concepts]

Communication between physicians and patients has a great influence on patient adherence, patient satisfaction and the success of treatment. In this context, patient centered care and emotional support have a high positive impact; however, it is unclear how physicians can be motivated to communicate with patients in an appreciative and empathetic way. The implementation of such behavior requires a multitude of communicative skills. One of them is active listening, which is very important in two respects. On the one hand active listening provides the basis for several conversational contexts as a special communication technique and on the other hand active listening is presented in current textbooks in different ways: as an attitude or as a technique. In light of this, the question arises how active listening should be taught in order to be not only applicable in concrete conversations but also to lead to the highest possible level of patient satisfaction. The aim of this pilot study was to examine some variations in simulated doctor-patient conversations, which are the result of the different approaches to active listening. For this purpose three groups of first semester medical students were recruited, two of which were schooled in active listening in different ways (two groups of six students), i.e. attitude versus technique oriented. The third group (seven students) acted as the control group. In a pre-post design interviews with standardized simulation patients were conducted and subsequently evaluated. The analysis of these interviews was considered from the perspectives of participants and observers as well as the quantitative aspects. This study revealed some interesting tendencies despite its status as a pilot study: in general, the two interventional groups performed significantly better than the control group in which no relevant changes occurred. In a direct comparison, the group in which active listening was taught from an attitude approach achieved better results than the group in which the focus was on the technical aspects of active listening. In the group with active listening schooled as an attitude, the response to the feelings of the standardized simulation patients was significantly better from the perspectives of both participants and observers.

A qualitative exploration of service users' information needs and preferences when receiving a serious mental health diagnosis

Helpful strategies for communicating news of a serious mental health diagnosis are poorly understood. This study explored service users' preferences for how they would like clinicians to deliver such news when a diagnosis of mental illness is made. Qualitative interviews were conducted with forty-five individuals identifying with serious mental illness in eleven community based mental health facilities. Inductive thematic analysis resulted in eight primary themes. Five themes related to the structure and content of the discussion; including a focus on information exchange, using an individualized collaborative partnership paradigm, addressing stigma, balancing hope with realism, and recognizing the dynamic nature of diagnosis. The remaining themes related to the involvement of others; including the importance of clinicians' communication and relationship skills, involvement and education of carers, and offering an opportunity for peer support. The product of the synthesis of themes is a step-wise model for communicating news of mental health diagnosis.

Non-specialist health worker interventions for the care of mental, neurological and substance-abuse disorders in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Many people with mental, neurological and substance-use disorders (MNS) do not receive health care. Non-specialist health workers (NSHWs) and other professionals with health roles (OPHRs) are a key strategy for closing the treatment gap.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of NSHWs and OPHRs delivering MNS interventions in primary and community health care in low- and middle-income countries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register) (searched 21 June 2012); MEDLINE, OvidSP; MEDLINE In Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, OvidSP; EMBASE, OvidSP (searched 15 June 2012); CINAHL, EBSCOhost; PsycINFO, OvidSP (searched 18 and 19 June 2012); World Health Organization (WHO) Global Health Library (searched 29 June 2012); LILACS; the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO); OpenGrey; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (searched 8 and 9 August 2012); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI Web of Knowledge) (searched 2 October 2012) and reference lists, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted-time-series studies of NSHWs/OPHR-delivered interventions in primary/community health care in low- and middle-income countries, and intended to improve outcomes in people with MNS disorders and in their carers. We defined an NSHW as any professional health worker (e.g. doctors, nurses and social workers) or lay health worker without specialised training in MNS disorders. OPHRs included people outside the health sector (only teachers in this review).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors double screened, double data-extracted and assessed risk of bias using standard formats. We grouped studies with similar interventions together. Where feasible, we combined data to obtain an overall estimate of effect.

MAIN RESULTS

The 38 included studies were from seven low- and 15 middle-income countries. Twenty-two studies used lay health workers, and most addressed depression or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The review shows that the use of NSHWs, compared with usual healthcare services: 1. may increase the number of adults who recover from depression or anxiety, or both, two to six months after treatment (prevalence of depression: risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.64; low-quality evidence); 2. may slightly reduce symptoms for mothers with perinatal depression (severity of depressive symptoms: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.42, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.26; low-quality evidence); 3. may slightly reduce the symptoms of adults with PTSD (severity of PTSD symptoms: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.05; low-quality evidence); 4. probably slightly improves the symptoms of people with dementia (severity of behavioural symptoms: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.08; moderate-quality evidence); 5. probably improves/slightly improves the mental well-being, burden and distress of carers of people with dementia (carer burden: SMD -0.50, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.15; moderate-quality evidence); 6. may decrease the amount of alcohol consumed by people with alcohol-use disorders (drinks/drinking day in last 7 to 30 days: mean difference -1.68, 95% CI -2.79 to -0.57); low-quality evidence).It is uncertain whether lay health workers or teachers reduce PTSD symptoms among children. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of using NSHWs or teachers, or about their impact on people with other MNS conditions. In addition, very few studies measured adverse effects of NSHW-led care - such effects could impact on the appropriateness and quality of care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, NSHWs and teachers have some promising benefits in improving people's outcomes for general and perinatal depression, PTSD and alcohol-use disorders, and patient- and carer-outcomes for dementia. However, this evidence is mostly low or very low quality, and for some issues no evidence is available. Therefore, we cannot make conclusions about which specific NSHW-led interventions are more effective.

Mass media interventions for reducing mental health-related stigma

BACKGROUND

Mental health-related stigma is widespread and has major adverse effects on the lives of people with mental health problems. Its two major components are discrimination (being treated unfairly) and prejudice (stigmatising attitudes). Anti-stigma initiatives often include mass media interventions, and such interventions can be expensive. It is important to know if mass media interventions are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of mass media interventions on reducing stigma (discrimination and prejudice) related to mental ill health compared to inactive controls, and to make comparisons of effectiveness based on the nature of the intervention (e.g. number of mass media components), the content of the intervention (e.g. type of primary message), and the type of media (e.g. print, internet).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched eleven databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2011); MEDLINE (OvidSP),1966 to 15 August 2011; EMBASE (OvidSP),1947 to 15 August 2011; PsycINFO (OvidSP), 1806 to 15 August 2011; CINAHL (EBSCOhost) 1981 to 16 August 2011; ERIC (CSA), 1966 to 16 August 2011; Social Science Citation Index (ISI), 1956 to 16 August 2011; OpenSIGLE (http://www.opengrey.eu/), 1980 to 18 August 2012; Worldcat Dissertations and Theses (OCLC), 1978 to 18 August 2011; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/mrct_about.asp), 1973 to 18 August 2011; and Ichushi (OCLC), 1903 to 11 November 2011. We checked references from articles and reviews, and citations from included studies. We also searched conference abstracts and websites, and contacted researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs or interrupted time series studies of mass media interventions compared to inactive controls in members of the general public or any of its constituent groups (excluding studies in which all participants were people with mental health problems), with mental health as a subject of the intervention and discrimination or prejudice outcome measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for missing information. Information about adverse effects was collected from study reports. Primary outcomes were discrimination and prejudice, and secondary outcomes were knowledge, cost, reach, recall, and awareness of interventions, duration/sustainability of media effects, audience reactions to media content, and unforeseen adverse effects. We calculated standardised mean differences and odds ratios. We conducted a primarily narrative synthesis due to the heterogeneity of included studies. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effects of the nature, content and type of mass media intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 studies involving 4490 participants. All were randomised trials (3 were cluster RCTs), and 19 of the 22 studies had analysable outcome data. Seventeen of the studies had student populations. Most of the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias for all forms of bias except detection bias.Findings from the five trials with discrimination outcomes (n = 1196) were mixed, with effects showing a reduction, increase or consistent with no evidence of effect. The median standardised mean difference (SMD) for the three trials (n = 394) with continuous outcomes was -0.25, with SMDs ranging from -0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.39 to -0.31) to -0.17 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.20). Odds ratios (OR) for the two studies (n = 802) with dichotomous discrimination outcomes showed no evidence of effect: results were 1.30 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.19) and 1.19 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.65).The 19 trials (n = 3176) with prejudice outcomes had median SMDs favouring the intervention, at the three following time periods: -0.38 (immediate), -0.38 (1 week to 2 months) and -0.49 (6 to 9 months). SMDs for prejudice outcomes across all studies ranged from -2.94 (95% CI -3.52 to -2.37) to 2.40 (95% CI 0.62 to 4.18). The median SMDs indicate that mass media interventions may have a small to medium effect in decreasing prejudice, and are equivalent to reducing the level of prejudice from that associated with schizophrenia to that associated with major depression.The studies were very heterogeneous, statistically, in their populations, interventions and outcomes, and only two meta-analyses within two subgroups were warranted. Data on secondary outcomes were sparse. Cost data were provided on request for three studies (n = 416), were highly variable, and did not address cost-effectiveness. Two studies (n = 455) contained statements about adverse effects and neither reported finding any.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Mass media interventions may reduce prejudice, but there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects on discrimination. Very little is known about costs, adverse effects or other outcomes. Our review found few studies in middle- and low-income countries, or with employers or health professionals as the target group, and none targeted at children or adolescents. The findings are limited by the quality of the evidence, which was low for the primary outcomes for discrimination and prejudice, low for adverse effects and very low for costs. More research is required to establish the effects of mass media interventions on discrimination, to better understand which types of mass media intervention work best, to provide evidence about cost-effectiveness, and to fill evidence gaps about types of mass media not covered in this review. Such research should use robust methods, report data more consistently with reporting guidelines and be less reliant on student populations.

Do communication training programs improve students' communication skills?--a follow-up study

Background

Although it is taken for granted that history-taking and communication skills are learnable, this learning process should be confirmed by rigorous studies, such as randomized pre- and post-comparisons. The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether a communication course measurably improves the communicative competence of third-year medical students at a German medical school and whether technical or emotional aspects of communication changed differently.

Method

A sample of 32 randomly selected students performed an interview with a simulated patient before the communication course (pre-intervention) and a second interview after the course (post-intervention), using the Calgary-Cambridge Observation Guide (CCOG) to assess history taking ability.

Results

On average, the students improved in all of the 28 items of the CCOG. The 6 more technically-orientated communication items improved on average from 3.4 for the first interview to 2.6 in the second interview (p < 0.0001), the 6 emotional items from 2.7 to 2.3 (p = 0.023). The overall score for women improved from 3.2 to 2.5 (p = 0.0019); male students improved from 3.0 to 2.7 (n.s.). The mean interview time significantly increased from the first to the second interview, but the increase in the interview duration and the change of the overall score for the students’ communication skills were not correlated (Pearson’s r = 0.03; n.s.).

Conclusions

Our communication course measurably improved communication skills, especially for female students. These improvements did not depend predominantly on an extension of the interview time. Obviously, “technical” aspects of communication can be taught better than “emotional” communication skills.

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 course. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual, their family and society. Increasingly partnership models of mental health care have been advocated and enshrined in international healthcare policy. Shared decision making is one such partnership approach. Shared decision making is a form of patient-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision. This is advocated on the basis that patients have a right to self-determination and also in the expectation that it will increase treatment adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of provider-, consumer- or carer-directed shared decision making interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, on a range of outcomes including: patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and health service outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2008), EMBASE (1980 to November 2008), PsycINFO (1967 to November 2008), CINAHL (1982 to November 2008), British Nursing Index and Archive (1985 to November 2008) and SIGLE (1890 to September 2005 (database end date)). We also searched online trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials (q-RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs); and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of interventions to increase shared decision making in people with mental health conditions (by DSM or ICD-10 criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on recruitment methods, eligibility criteria, sample characteristics, interventions, outcome measures, participant flow and outcome data from each study were extracted by one author and checked by another. Data are presented in a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two separate German studies involving a total of 518 participants. One study was undertaken in the inpatient treatment of schizophrenia and the other in the treatment of people newly diagnosed with depression in primary care. Regarding the primary outcomes, one study reported statistically significant increases in patient satisfaction, the other study did not. There was no evidence of effect on clinical outcomes or hospital readmission rates in either study. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was an indication that interventions to increase shared decision making increased doctor facilitation of patient involvement in decision making, and did not increase consultation times. Nor did the interventions increase patient compliance with treatment plans. Neither study reported any harms of the intervention. Definite conclusions cannot be drawn, however, on the basis of these two studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No firm conclusions can be drawn at present about the effects of shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. There is no evidence of harm, but there is an urgent need for further research in this area.