Effectiveness of Shared Decision-Making Training Program in People With Schizophrenia in South Korea

Educating for supported decision making and shared decision making: a scoping review of educational design and outcomes for education and training interventions

PURPOSE

To characterise existing knowledge about the design and learning outcomes of education and training programs for supported or shared decision making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review was performed to identify academic and grey literature, published between January 2006 and February 2022, that reported on the design and/or learning outcomes of supported or shared decision making education or training programs. Eligible literature was mapped across domains of educational design and Kirkpatrick's hierarchy of learning effectiveness, and then qualitatively synthesised using cross-case analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 33 articles were identified (n = 7 for supported decision making and n = 26 for shared decision making) that provided education or training to supporters of persons with mental illness or substance use disorders (n = 14), dementia or neurocognitive disorders (n = 6), cognitive disability (n = 5), mixed populations (n = 1), and those receiving end-of-life care (n = 7). In their design, most programs sought specific changes in practice (behaviour) via experiential learning. Reported educational outcomes also focused on supporter behaviour, with limited evidence for how changes in learner attitudes, skills, or knowledge might be contributing to changes in supporter behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

Future education and training would benefit from a closer engagement with theories of teaching and learning, particularly those oriented towards co-design.

Shifting Perspectives on the Challenges of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Care

Although shared decision making (SDM) has become the most preferable way in doctor-patient communication, it is not fully implemented in mental health care likely due to the complex nature of psychiatric syndromes and treatments. In this review we provide a systematic overview of all perceived and reported barriers to SDM in the literature, acknowledging field-specific challenges, and offering perspectives to promote its wider use. We conducted a systematic search of the wider literature in different databases and included all publications mentioning specified barriers to SDM in psychiatric care. Relevant data and opinions were categorised into micro-, meso- and macro-level themes and put into clinical perspective. We derived 20 barriers to SDM from 100 studies and reports. Eight were on micro-level care delivery, seven involved meso-level issues, five concerned macro-level themes. The multitude of perceived and actual barriers to SDM underline the challenges its implementation poses in mental health care, some of which can be resolved while others are inherent to the nature of the care, with its long-term relationships, complex dynamics, and social consequences, all requiring a flexible approach. We present four perspectives to help change views on the potential of SDM in mental health care.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Perspectives of Patients and Providers in Using Shared Decision Making in Psychiatry

There is increased interest over the last decade in the use of Shared Decision Making with individuals with serious mental illness to improve engagement in treatment and clinical outcomes. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 15 individuals with serious mental illness treated in an outpatient transitional care clinic serving people immediately after discharge from a psychiatric hospitalization. Parallel interviews were conducted with a variety of clinical providers (n = 9). Using latent thematic analysis, six themes were identified including: (1) Differences in the Use of SDM, (2) Consideration of Past Experiences, (3) Decisional Power Preferences, (4) Use of SDM in Psychiatry Versus Other Areas of Medicine, (5) Dignity and Disengagement, and (6) External Forces Impacting SDM. Implications for clinical practice and research using a shared decision-making approach within this treatment setting are further discussed.

Depressive symptoms and quality of life in people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia: An exploratory study of the potential mediating role of health-promoting lifestyles

PURPOSE

To examine health-promoting lifestyles mediates the relationship between depressive symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in people with schizophrenia.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A cross-sectional exploratory study design was conducted. Two-hundred and seventy-three participants were administered demographic data, health-promoting lifestyle profile, Beck Depression Inventory II, and World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF. The Hayes PROCESS macro was employed to analyze data.

FINDINGS

The results showed self-actualization fully mediated the environmental domain of QOL, physical health, psychological health, and social relationships domains were partial mediation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study recommends that professionals reinforce persons' self-actualization when the QOL is affected by depressive symptoms in people with schizophrenia.

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.

Needs of people with psychosis and their caregivers: «In their own voice»

INTRODUCTION

Improvement in mental health care services is going through a greater involvement of people with mental disorders and their families. Our aim was to directly ask the opinion of people with psychosis and their caregivers about their needs and preference for treatment.

METHODS

The authors designed an anonymous survey containing 9questions about their needs or suggestions on different areas such as personal and social dimensions of the illness, medical and psychotherapeutic treatment, psychosocial rehabilitation or help received from professionals. A pilot study was done to ensure the adequacy and intelligibility of the form. The final survey consisted of 5.205 completed surveys were collected, corresponding to 2.840 people diagnosed with psychotic disorder (including schizophrenia) and 1.341 caregivers, from all over Spain.

RESULTS

The most important need as assessed by participants was emotional support (friendships, partner, family). 91% of patients indicated that this need was «quite» or «very important». Both people with schizophrenia and caregivers perceived their health to be poor (3.29 and 3.30 respectively on an ascending scale from 0 to 5). 43% of males and 39% of females reported having «little» or «no» freedom to make important life decisions. For 35% of participants the psychotherapeutic treatment was instituted too late. Work was «important» or «very important» for 74% of respondents, especially for young people. The most valued anti-stigma initiative was to increase investments in schizophrenia healthcare plans.

CONCLUSIONS

Designers of mental health care services should consider the importance given by people diagnosed with psychosis to emotional needs, perception of freedom to make choices and early intervention.

The role of shared decision-making in improving adherence to pharmacological treatments in patients with schizophrenia: a clinical review

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process in which the doctor provides clear and complete medical information to patients about their treatment, and patients provide information on his/her preferences. Patients and clinicians bring different, but equally important, knowledge to the decision-making process. Through the adoption of SDM, it should be possible to overcome the barriers that hinder the acceptance of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) by patients, and often also by psychiatrists. The present paper is a critical appraisal of recent literature on the impact of SDM in improving adherence to pharmacological treatments and in implementing the use of LAIs in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. SDM is recognized as a promising strategy to improve collaboration between clinicians and patients in achieving recovery. When considering drug treatments, clinicians must evaluate the patient's preferences, expectations and concerns towards the development of a personalized treatment strategy. Moreover, an active involvement in the decision process could reduce the patient's perception of being coerced into the use of LAIs. Involving patients in the choice of therapy is not sufficient to increase pharmacological adherence if, at the same time, there is no constant work of comparison and communication with the reference psychiatric team. SDM can be particularly effective for LAI prescription, since patient can have prejudices and unjustified fears related to the LAI formulation, which the doctor must resolve.

Interventions to improve participation in health-care decisions in non-Western countries: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

Background

Patients' participation in medical decision making is an important aspect of patient‐centred care. However, there is often uncertainty about its applicability and feasibility in non‐Western countries.

Objective

To provide an overview and assessment of interventions that aimed to improve patients' participation in decision making in non‐Western countries.

Method

Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Epub Ahead of Print, In‐Process, Other Non‐Indexed Citations, without Revisions and Daily Update and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, were searched from respective inception to February 2018. Studies were included if they (a) were randomized controlled trials, before‐and‐after studies and interrupted time series studies; (b) were conducted in non‐Western countries; (c) aimed to improve patients' participation in dyadic decision making; and (d) reported outcomes relevant to patient participation in decision making. Studies were excluded if they included children, were about triadic decision making or solely focused on information provision without reporting outcomes related to patient participation. Narrative synthesis method was used for data analysis and presentation.

Results

A total of 17 studies, 6 RCTs and 11 non‐RCTs, were included across ten countries. Intervention strategies included patient and/or provider communication skills training, decision aids and a question prompt material. Whilst most of the studies reported increased patient participation, those interventions which had provider or patient training in communication skills were found to be more effective.

Conclusion

Interventions to improve patient participation, within the context of dyadic decision making, in non‐Western countries can be feasible and effective if communication skills training is provided for health‐care providers and/or patients.

Two approaches, one goal: How mental health registered nurses' perceive their role and the role of peer support workers in facilitating consumer decision-making

Recovery-oriented principles underpin modern-day mental health care and are enhanced by consumer participation in decision-making. Understanding how consumer participation can be maximized is central to promoting recovery-oriented care. This study explored the key strategies used by mental health registered nurses and perceived by nurses to be used by peer support workers in facilitating consumer decision-making to determine similarities, differences, and possible tensions. A qualitative descriptive approach using semi-structured interviews was conducted with nine nurses employed in mental health care. Thematic analysis was conducted using open coding. Frequency of views expressed and prevalence of these amongst participants were noted to determine the most common strategies and challenges. Registered nurses use strategies aimed at empowerment, self-management, and managing expectations to facilitate decision-making but are challenged by entrenched coercion within the system. These same nurses view peer support workers as using their lived experience to build rapport, role model, and advocate for consumers. Tensions arise in how the peer support workers' lived experience should be used and how this impacts on professional and therapeutic boundaries. Nurses expressed support for the role of peer support workers and viewed their inclusion in facilitating consumer decision-making positively. Their own role is perceived as being caught between modern-day service principles of empowerment and long-standing practices based on coercion.