Making decisions about treatment for young people diagnosed with depressive disorders: a qualitative study of clinicians' experiences

Trust, discrimination and preference for shared decision-making in adolescents diagnosed with depression: Implications from Chinese mental health professionals

BACKGROUND

While evidence suggests that the attitudes of healthcare providers toward medical decision-making in adolescents diagnosed with depression merit exploration, research on their preferences for Shared Decision-Making (SDM) and the factors affecting these preferences remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate Chinese mental health professionals' (MHPs) preferences for SDM in adolescents with depression and identify the relationships between their preference for SDM and trust and discrimination.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was used in this study. Clinical Decision-making Style-Staff (CDMS-S) was applied to evaluate their preferences for SDM. Physician Trust in the Patient Scale (PTPS) was utilised to assess their trust in consumers. Social Distance Scale to Mental Illness (SDSMI) was utilised to measure their discrimination against people with mental illness.

RESULTS

A total of 581 MHPs were identified in China. MHPs rated their preference for participation in decision making (PD) as shared (1.89 ± 0.472), information (IN) as moderate (2.62 ± 0.682), and family involvement (FI) as high (3.13 ± 0.840). The preferences for three decision topics ranked from the highest to the lowest score were working-related decision (2.35 ± 0.681), general preferences in decision (1.82 ± 0.581) and medication-related decision (1.74 ± 0.826). The mean score of PTPS and SDSMI were 34.71 (SD=9.709) and 15.17 (SD=4.299), respectively. Logistic regression indicated that the preference for PD was associated with discrimination; the preference for IN was associated with trust, discrimination and SDM-related training experience; and the preference for FI was associated with both trust and discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

While MHPs generally exhibit a favourable attitude toward SDM, this positivity is not universally observed across all contexts. There remains room for improvement in the willingness to co-develop medication regimens and share health information. Rational recognition of depression, and building trusting and friendly therapeutic relationships are key to promoting MHPs' preferences for SDM.

PRACTICAL VALUE

MHPs' preferences for SDM have a significant impact on SDM implementation, which will be promoted by implementing SDM-related training.

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.

Comparison of analog and digital patient decision aids for the treatment of depression: a scoping review

Introduction

Patient decision aids (PDAs) are important tools to empower patients and integrate their preferences and values in the decision-making process. Even though patients with mental health problems have a strong interest in being more involved in decision making about their treatment, research has mainly focused on PDAs for somatic conditions. In this scoping review, we focus on patients suffering from depression and the role of PDAs for this patient group. The review offers an overview of digital and analog PDAs, their advantages and disadvantages as well as recommendations for further research and development.

Methods

A systematic search of the existing literature guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was conducted. Three electronic literature databases with the appropriate thematic focus were searched (PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science). The search strategy used controlled and natural language to search for the key concepts decision aids and depression. The articles were selected in a two-step process guided by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We narratively synthetized information extracted from 40 research articles.

Results

We included 40 articles in our review. Our review revealed that there is more focus on digital PDAs in research than in clinical practice. Digitalization can enhance the benefits of PDAs by developing tools that are more efficient, interactive, and personalized. The main disadvantages of both types of PDAs for the treatment of depression are related to time, dissemination, and capacity building for the health care providers. Digital PDAs need to be regularly updated, effective strategies for their dissemination and acceptance need to be identified, and clinicians need sufficient training on how to use digital PDAs. There is more research needed to study which forms of PDAs are most appropriate for various patient groups (e.g., older adults, or patients with comorbidities), and to identify the most effective ways of PDAs' integration in the clinical workflow. The findings from our review could be well aligned with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards.

Discussion

More research is needed regarding effective strategies for the implementation of digital PDAs into the clinical workflow, ethical issues raised by the digital format, and opportunities of tailoring PDAs for diverse patient groups.

General practitioners' everyday clinical decision-making on psychosocial problems of children and youth in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial problems in children and youth are common and may negatively impact their lives and the lives of their families. Since general practitioners (GPs) play a crucial role in detecting and intervening in such problems, it is clinically necessary to improve our insight into their clinical decision-making (CDM). The objective of this study was to explore which mechanisms underlie GPs' everyday CDM and their options for management or referral.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a mixed methods study in which qualitative (interview substudy) and quantitative (online survey substudy) data were collected from GPs. Using a question framework and vignettes representative of clinical practice, GPs' CDM was explored. GPs were selected by means of an academic research network and purposive sampling. Data collection continued in constant comparison between both substudies. Using grounded theory, data from both substudies were triangulated into a flowchart consisting of mechanisms and management/referral options.

RESULTS

CDM-mechanisms were divided into three groups. GP-related mechanisms were GPs' primary approach of the problem (somatically or psychosocially) and their self-assessed competence to solve the problem based on interest in and knowledge about youth mental health care. Mechanisms related to the child and its social context included GPs' assessment whether there was psychiatric (co)morbidity, their sense of self-limitedness of the problem and assessed complexity of the problem. Whether GPs' had existing collaboration agreements with youth care providers and how they experienced their collaboration were collaboration-related mechanisms.

CONCLUSION

The current study contributes to a relatively unexplored research area by revealing GP's in-depth thought processes regarding their CDM. However, existing research in this area supports the identified CDM mechanisms. Future initiatives should focus on validating CDM mechanisms in a larger population. If confirmed, mechanisms could be integrated into GP training and may offer guidelines for regulating proper access to mental health care services.

SDM Training Modules for Health and Social Care Professionals in Israel

While the strategy of Shared Decision Making (SDM) originated in the medical field and was later adopted into the mental health arena, little attention has been paid to practice in the broader fields of the allied health and social care professions. These professions are grounded in the recognition of a need for practice that reflects the partnership and collaboration of the professional and the service user working together to further the health and well-being of the user. A pilot training module was developed to introduce and support students in their journey from exposure to the co-production ideology and the SDM strategy into clinical practice in the allied health and social care professions. The aim of the present article is to describe the students' experiences while learning about SDM and their use of this knowledge in their field practice in Israel. The students' experiences highlighted the complexity of integrating SDM into practice both at the individual student level as well as the macro environment. Moreover, it pointed to the need to further develop this co-production paradigm and the SDM strategy into the education of the allied health and social care professions.

Acceptability, safety and perceived impact of providing a fact sheet to young people about cognitive symptoms in depression

AIM

Cognitive deficits are common in young people, aged 15-25, with depression. Nevertheless, these symptoms are not routinely addressed in clinical care. This study examined the acceptability, safety, and reported impact on cognitive knowledge and strategy use, of a newly developed fact sheet (Thinking about Thinking Skills in Depression) for young people with depression.

METHOD

Twenty-three participants, aged 15-25 years old (M = 19.6, SD = 3.2), receiving community-based treatment for a depressive disorder were delivered the fact sheet by their case manager and completed pre- and post-assessments conducted 3 weeks apart. Primary outcomes included: acceptability, safety, subjective distress, knowledge of cognition and use of, and confidence in using, cognitive strategies. Exploratory outcomes included depression symptoms, perceived cognitive difficulties, self-efficacy and self-esteem. Case manager perspectives were obtained using an anonymous online survey.

RESULTS

Participant experiences of the fact sheet were favourable. Most reported that the amount of content provided was appropriate (91%), looked at the fact sheet again after receiving it (83%), and tried at least one strategy (57%). Participants reported significant improvements in their knowledge of cognitive difficulties and a greater use of, and confidence in using, cognitive strategies. Distress did not change following fact sheet delivery, supporting safety. Perceived improvements in depression symptoms and cognitive deficits, but not self-esteem or self-efficacy, were revealed. Case manager perspectives were also positive.

CONCLUSION

Written fact sheet resources are an acceptable, safe and pragmatic method of delivering information about cognitive difficulties to young people with depression.

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Digital Intervention to Support Shared Decision-making in Children's and Young People's Mental Health: Mixed Methods Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Interventions to involve parents in decisions regarding children’s and young people’s mental health are associated with positive outcomes. However, appropriately planning effectiveness studies is critical to ensure that meaningful evidence is collected. It is important to conduct pilot studies to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention itself and the feasibility of the protocol to test effectiveness.

Objective

This paper reports the findings from a feasibility and acceptability study of Power Up for Parents, an intervention to promote shared decision-making (SDM) and support parents and caregivers making decisions regarding children’s and young people’s mental health.

Methods

A mixed method study design was adopted. In stage 1, health care professionals and parents provided feedback on acceptability, usefulness, and suggestions for further development. Stage 2 was a multicenter, 3-arm, individual, and cluster randomized controlled pilot feasibility trial with parents accessing services related to children’s and young people’s mental health. Outcome measures collected data on demographics, participation rates, SDM, satisfaction, and parents’ anxiety. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Google Analytics estimates were used to report engagement with the prototype. Outcomes from both stages were tested against a published set of criteria for proceeding to a randomized controlled trial.

Results

Despite evidence suggesting the acceptability of Power Up for Parents, the findings suggest that recruitment modifications are needed to enhance the feasibility of collecting follow-up data before scaling up to a fully powered randomized controlled trial. On the basis of the Go or No-Go criteria, only 50% (6/12) of the sites successfully recruited participants, and only 38% (16/42) of parents completed follow-up measures. Nonetheless, health care practitioners and parents generally accessed and used the intervention. Themes describing appearance and functionality, perceived need and general helpfulness, accessibility and appropriateness, and a wish list for improvement emerged, providing valuable information to inform future development and refinement of the intervention.

Conclusions

Owing to the high attrition observed in the trial, proceeding directly to a full randomized controlled trial may not be feasible with this recruitment strategy. Nonetheless, with some minor adjustments and upgrades to the intervention, this pilot study provides a platform for future evaluations of Power Up for Parents.

Trial Registration

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 39238984; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN39238984.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/14571

A scoping review and assessment of essential elements of shared decision-making of parent-involved interventions in child and adolescent mental health

Parents play a critical role in child and adolescent mental health care and treatment. With the increasing implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) across health settings, there is a growing need to understand the decision support interventions used to promote SDM in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). The overall aim of this review is to identify and examine the existing decision support interventions available for parents. A broad search was conducted using the key concepts "shared decision-making", "parents" and "child and adolescent mental health". Five electronic databases were searched: PsycInfo, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. In addition to these relevant databases, we searched the Ottawa's Inventory of Decision Aids, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario website, Google, Google Play and known CAMHS' websites. The search identified 23 interventions available for use with parents. These interventions targeted parents providing care for children with ADHD, ASD, emotional and behavioural problems including depression (EBD), self-harm or universal mental health care. Various modalities including face-to-face, digital and paper-based versions were adopted. The majority of the interventions were able to "present options" (87%) and "discuss the pros and cons" (83%) of treatment. Time, accessibility and appropriateness of the intervention emerged as factors influencing usage and implementation of interventions. Our findings suggest that SDM interventions involving parents have been implemented differently across various presenting mental health difficulties in CAMHS. This review brings awareness of existing parent-involved interventions and has implications for the development, implementation and usage of new interventions.

A Mobile App to Support Parents Making Child Mental Health Decisions: Protocol for a Feasibility Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is recognized as a person-centered approach to improving health care quality and outcomes. Few digital interventions to improve SDM have been tested in child and adolescent mental health (CAMH) settings. One such intervention is Power Up, a mobile phone app for young people (YP), which has shown some evidence of promise that YP who received Power Up reported greater levels of SDM. However, even though parents play a critical role in CAMH care and treatment, they often feel excluded from services.

OBJECTIVE

This protocol is for a pilot trial to determine the feasibility of a large-scale randomized trial to develop and evaluate a Web app called Power Up for Parents (PUfP) to support parents and promote involvement in CAMH decisions.

METHODS

A 2-stage process, consisting of the development stage and pilot-testing stage of the initial PUfP prototype, will be conducted. At the development stage, a qualitative study with parents and clinicians will be conducted. The interviews will aim to capture the experience of making CAMH decisions, preferences for involvement in SDM, and determine situations within which PUfP can be useful. At the pilot-testing stage, up to 90 parents and their clinicians will be invited to participate in the testing of the prototype. Parents will be randomly allocated to receive the intervention or be part of the control group. This study design will allow us to assess the acceptability and usefulness of PUfP in addition to examining the feasibility of a prospective randomized trial. Clinicians' perceptions of the prototype and how it has influenced parents' involvement in SDM will also be examined.

RESULTS

Recruitment began in January 2019 and is scheduled to last for 10 months. Interviews and baseline data collection are currently in progress. To date, 11 CAMH sites have been recruited to take part in the study. It is anticipated that data collection will be completed by October 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of parents' involvement in CAMH care and treatment can lead to higher rates of dropout from care and lower adherence to therapeutic interventions. There are significant benefits to be gained globally if digital SDM interventions are adopted by parents and shown to be successful in CAMH settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN39238984; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN39238984.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/14571.

Barriers and facilitators of pediatric shared decision-making: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is rarely implemented in pediatric practice. Pediatric health decision-making differs from that of adult practice. Yet, little is known about the factors that influence the implementation of pediatric shared decision-making (SDM). We synthesized pediatric SDM barriers and facilitators from the perspectives of healthcare providers (HCP), parents, children, and observers (i.e., persons who evaluated the SDM process, but were not directly involved).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review guided by the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO (inception to March 2017) and included studies that reported clinical pediatric SDM barriers and/or facilitators from the perspective of HCPs, parents, children, and/or observers. We considered all or no comparison groups and included all study designs reporting original data. Content analysis was used to synthesize barriers and facilitators and categorized them according to the OMRU levels (i.e., decision, innovation, adopters, relational, and environment) and participant types (i.e., HCP, parents, children, and observers). We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to appraise study quality.

RESULTS

Of 20,008 identified citations, 79 were included. At each OMRU level, the most frequent barriers were features of the options (decision), poor quality information (innovation), parent/child emotional state (adopter), power relations (relational), and insufficient time (environment). The most frequent facilitators were low stake decisions (decision), good quality information (innovation), agreement with SDM (adopter), trust and respect (relational), and SDM tools/resources (environment). Across participant types, the most frequent barriers were insufficient time (HCPs), features of the options (parents), power imbalances (children), and HCP skill for SDM (observers). The most frequent facilitators were good quality information (HCP) and agreement with SDM (parents and children). There was no consistent facilitator category for observers. Overall, study quality was moderate with quantitative studies having the highest ratings and mixed-method studies having the lowest ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous diverse and interrelated factors influence SDM use in pediatric clinical practice. Our findings can be used to identify potential pediatric SDM barriers and facilitators, guide context-specific barrier and facilitator assessments, and inform interventions for implementing SDM in pediatric practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015020527.

Barriers and facilitators to shared decision making in child and youth mental health: clinician perspectives using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly being suggested as an integral part of mental health provision. Yet, there is little research on what clinicians believe the barriers and facilitators around practice to be. At the same time, there is also increasing recognition of a theory-practice gap within the field, with calls for more pragmatic uses of theory to inform and improve clinical practice. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a comprehensive, theoretical-led framework, underpinned by 33 behaviour change theories and 128 constructs, clinician perceived barriers and facilitators to SDM are investigated. The sample comprised of 15 clinicians across two sites in England, who took part in qualitative semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Transcripts were analysed using a deductive thematic analysis, and themes were coded under each theoretical domain. Overall, 21 barriers and facilitators for SDM in child and youth mental health were identified across ten domains of the TDF. Under capability, barriers and facilitators were found for knowledge, skills, memory/attention/decision making processes, and behavioural regulation. For opportunity, barriers and facilitators were found for social influences, as well as environmental context and resources. Finally, for motivation, domains covered included: beliefs about consequences, beliefs about capabilities, emotions, and professional role and identity. Findings suggest that a range of barriers and facilitators affect clinicians' abilities to engage in SDM with young people and parents. Interventions which target different domains related to capability, opportunity and motivation should be developed to better facilitate young people and their families in care and treatment decisions.

What are the implications for practice that arise from studies of medication taking? A systematic review of qualitative research

Background

Despite several decades of evidence supporting the benefits of taking medications in various diseases and healthcare settings, a significant proportion of prescribed treatments are not taken. This review sought to synthesise qualitative research exploring experiences of medication taking around the world, and to determine whether there were consistent messages arising from these studies.

Methods and findings

5 databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL) were systematically searched to identify published research papers using qualitative methodologies, which explored medication-taking experiences in patients, citizens, carers, relatives and clinicians. Data were extracted independently by at least two clinician reviewers. Implications for practice from individual papers were charted and coded using thematic content analysis. These were then cross-tabulated with research paper categories to explore emergent patterns with particular implications for practice. 192 papers from 34 different countries were included in the review. Implications for practice fitted into 11 categories: increase family involvement, increase clinician involvement, promote personalised management, address practical barriers, provide ongoing support, promote self-management, adopt a patient-centred approach, improve patient education, address system barriers, increase access to non-prescribing clinicians and improve clinician training. These implications for practice were generally evenly spread across research paper categories.

Conclusions

Implications for practice from the published qualitative literature exploring medication-taking are notably consistent across research methods, disease categories and geographical settings. More recent clinical trials of interventions to improve adherence have started to draw on these findings by focussing on improving clinical interactions and involving patients in healthcare decisions. Promoting patient education and self-management have been widely advocated, and improvements at a system level have been frequently cited in studies from developing countries and those relating to communicable diseases. Regardless of the setting, clinicians and policymakers around the world can focus efforts to improve medication-taking by considering a number of consistently emerging findings.

Shared decision-making for psychiatric medication: A mixed-methods evaluation of a UK training programme for service users and clinicians

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is recognised as a promising strategy to enhance good collaboration between clinicians and service users, yet it is not practised regularly in mental health.

AIMS

Develop and evaluate a novel training programme to enhance SDM in psychiatric medication management for service users, psychiatrists and care co-ordinators.

METHODS

The training programme design was informed by existing literature and local stakeholders consultations. Parallel group-based training programmes on SDM process were delivered to community mental health service users and providers. Evaluation consisted of quantitative measures at baseline and 12-month follow-up, post-programme participant feedback and qualitative interviews.

RESULTS

Training was provided to 47 service users, 35 care-coordinators and 12 psychiatrists. Participant feedback was generally positive. Statistically significant changes in service users' decisional conflict and perceptions of practitioners' interactional style in promoting SDM occurred at the follow-up. Qualitative data suggested positive impacts on service users' and care co-ordinators confidence to explore medication experience, and group-based training was valued.

CONCLUSIONS

The programme was generally acceptable to service users and practitioners. This indicates the value of conducting a larger study and exploring application for non-medical decisions.

A Qualitative Exploration of Clinician Views and Experiences of Treatment Decision-Making in Bipolar II Disorder

This study qualitatively explored clinicians' views and experiences of treatment decision-making in BPII. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 practising clinicians (n = 10 clinical psychologists, n = 6 GPs, n = 4 psychiatrists) with experience in treating adult outpatients with BPII. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using framework methods. Professional experience, and preferences for patient involvement in decision-making were also assessed. Qualitative analyses yielded four inter-related themes: (1) (non-)acceptance of diagnosis and treatment; (2) types of decisions; (3) treatment uncertainty and balancing act; and (4) decision-making in consultations. Clinician preferences for treatment, professional experience, and self-reported preferences for patient/family involvement seemed to influence decision-making. This study is the first to explore clinician views and experiences of treatment decision-making in BPII. Findings demonstrate how clinician-related factors may shape treatment decision-making, and suggest potential problems such as patient perceptions of lower-than-preferred involvement.

Right choice, right time: Evaluation of an online decision aid for youth depression

BACKGROUND

Appropriate treatment for youth depression is an important public health priority. Shared decision making has been recommended, yet no decision aids exist to facilitate this.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study was to evaluate an online decision aid for youth depression.

DESIGN

An uncontrolled cohort study with pre-decision, immediately post-decision and follow-up measurements.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Young people (n=66) aged 12-25 years with mild, mild-moderate or moderate-severe depression were recruited from two enhanced primary care services.

INTERVENTION

Online decision aid with evidence communication, preference elicitation and decision support components.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were ability to make a decision; whether the decision was in line with clinical practice guidelines, personal preferences and values; decisional conflict; perceived involvement; satisfaction with decision; adherence; and depression scores at follow-up.

RESULTS

After using the decision aid, clients were more likely to make a decision in line with guideline recommendations (93% vs 70%; P=.004), were more able to make a decision (97% vs 79%; P=.022), had significantly reduced decisional conflict (17.8 points lower (95% CI: 13.3-22.9 points lower) on the Decisional Conflict Scale (range 0-100)) and felt involved and satisfied with their decision. At follow-up, clients had significantly reduced depression symptoms (2.7 points lower (95% CI: 1.3-4.0 points lower) on the Patient Health Questionnaire nine-item scale (range 0-27)) and were adherent to 88% (95% CI: 82%-94%) of treatment courses.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

A decision aid for youth depression can help ensure evidence-based, client-centred care, promoting collaboration in this often difficult to engage population.

Facilitators and barriers to the active participation of clients with serious mental illnesses in medication decision making: the perceptions of young adult clients

The active participation of young adults with serious mental illnesses (SMI) in making decisions about their psychotropic medications is beneficial to their care quality and overall health. Many however report not expressing treatment preferences to psychiatrists. Qualitative methods were used to interview 24 young adults with SMI about their experiences making medication decisions with their psychiatrists. An inductive analytic approach was taken to identifying conceptual themes in the transcripts. Respondents reported that the primary facilitators to active participation were the psychiatrist's openness to the client's perspective, the psychiatrist's availability outside of office hours, the support of other mental health providers, and personal growth and self-confidence of the young adults. The primary barriers to active participation reported were the resistance of the psychiatrist, the lack of time for consultations, and limited client self-efficacy. Young adults with SMI can be active participants in making decisions about their psychiatric treatment.

Professional care after deliberate self-harm: a qualitative study of young people's experiences

BACKGROUND

Deliberate self-harm (DSH) is increasingly common among young people. At the same time, treatment and support after DSH are often hampered by low compliance.

AIM

To explore young people's perceptions of care and support during a 6-month period following their first contact for DSH.

METHODS

We conducted nine semistructured interviews with young people aged 16-24 years 6 months after their first contact for DSH. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Three main themes were extracted from the interviews. "Am I really in good hands?" describes whether the participants felt they were being listened to and taken seriously and whether they could rely on the competence of the professionals and the appropriateness of treatment, including keeping agreements and communication with other relevant agencies. "Help should match life circumstances" comprises how basic practicalities such as travel possibilities affect treatment and concomitant assistance in everyday living. Financial matters and jobseeking were perceived as necessary for optimal treatment and well-being. "Making yourself better" includes participants' efforts to manage on their own, through realizing their own responsibility to be engaged and actively take part in treatment planning.

CONCLUSION

Flexibility and responsiveness to young people's own views and specific needs in treatment arrangements are of crucial importance. The significance of basic practical help cannot be underestimated and should not be overlooked.

Qualitative and mixed methods in mental health services and implementation research

Qualitative and mixed methods play a prominent role in mental health services research. However, the standards for their use are not always evident, especially for those not trained in such methods. This article reviews the rationale and common approaches to using qualitative and mixed methods in mental health services and implementation research based on a review of the articles included in this special series along with representative examples from the literature. Qualitative methods are used to provide a "thick description" or depth of understanding to complement breadth of understanding afforded by quantitative methods, elicit the perspective of those being studied, explore issues that have not been well studied, develop conceptual theories or test hypotheses, or evaluate the process of a phenomenon or intervention. Qualitative methods adhere to many of the same principles of scientific rigor as quantitative methods but often differ with respect to study design, data collection, and data analysis strategies. For instance, participants for qualitative studies are usually sampled purposefully rather than at random and the design usually reflects an iterative process alternating between data collection and analysis. The most common techniques for data collection are individual semistructured interviews, focus groups, document reviews, and participant observation. Strategies for analysis are usually inductive, based on principles of grounded theory or phenomenology. Qualitative methods are also used in combination with quantitative methods in mixed-method designs for convergence, complementarity, expansion, development, and sampling. Rigorously applied qualitative methods offer great potential in contributing to the scientific foundation of mental health services research.