Consultant psychiatrists' experiences of and attitudes towards shared decision making in antipsychotic prescribing, a qualitative study

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.

The role of pharmacists in supporting service users to optimise antipsychotic medication

Pharmacists have a contribution to make in improving optimising medication use for people on antipsychotic medication. The rates of prescribing antipsychotics have increased in England with an 18% rise from 2015 to 2020. People on antipsychotic medication are not treated as equal partners in conversations about their medications. This can leave people to make decisions about their antipsychotic medications without input from their prescribers which can have significant consequences for individuals. Involving people in the decision-making process, as experts on their own condition, has the potential to improve treatment outcomes. The evidence suggests that involving pharmacists in supporting people with serious mental illnesses will lead to improved clinical outcomes. Key areas for pharmacist involvement are providing information, education and counselling on antipsychotic medication and the side effects and reducing polypharmacy especially when antipsychotics are prescribed off license.

Shared Decision Making in Psychiatry: Dissolving the Responsibility Problem

Person centered care (PCC) invites ideas of shared responsibility as a direct result of its shared decision making (SDM) process. The intersection of PCC and psychiatric contexts brings about what I refer to as the responsibility problem, which seemingly arises when SDM is applied in psychiatric settings due to (1) patients’ potentially diminished capacities for responsibility, (2) tension prompted by professional reasons for and against sharing responsibility with patients, as well as (3) the responsibility/blame dilemma. This paper aims to do away with the responsibility problem through arguing for a functional approach to mental illness, a blameless responsibility ascription to the person with mental illness, as well as a nuanced understanding of SDM as part of an emancipation-oriented PCC model.

Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure-process-outcome model

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) as a multicollaborative approach is vital for facilitating patient-centred care. Considering the limited clinical practice, we attempted to synthesize the motivations and resistances, and investigate their mutual relationships for advancing the implementation of SDM.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed. 'Shared decision making' was searched as the mesh term through PubMed, Web of Science and EBSCO from 2000 to 2021, and the quality of literature was appraised using the QualSyst Tool. Motivations and resistances were categorized based on content analysis and the 'structure-process-outcome' model.

RESULTS

From 8319 potential citations, 105 were included, comprising 53 qualitative studies (the average quality score is 0.92) and 52 quantitative studies (the average quality score is 0.95). A total of 42 categories of factors were identified into 11 themes and further grouped into three dimensions: structure, process and outcome. The structure dimension comprised six themes (71.43%), the process dimension contained four themes (11.01%) and the outcome dimension covered only one theme. Across all categories, decision-making time and patients' decision preparedness in the process dimension were the most reported, followed by physicians' communication skills and health care environment in the structure dimension. Analysis of implementation of SDM among various types of diseases showed that more influencing factors were extracted from chronic diseases and unspecified disease decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

The major determinants for the implementation of SDM are focused on the structural dimension, which challenges the health systems of both developed and low- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, we consider it important to understand more about the interactions among the factors to take integrated measures to address the problems and to ensure the effectiveness of implementing SDM.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders articulated their perspectives on the implementation of SDM actively, and these were adopted and analysed in this study. However, the above-mentioned individuals were not directly involved in the process of this study. Protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021259309).

Vulnerability in practice: Peeling back the layers, avoiding triggers, and preventing cascading effects

The concept of vulnerability is widely used in bioethics, particularly in research ethics and public health ethics. The traditional approach construes vulnerability as inherent in individuals or the groups to which they belong and views vulnerability as requiring special protections. Florencia Luna and other bioethicists continue to challenge traditional ways of conceptualizing and applying the term. Luna began proposing a layered approach to this concept and recently extended this proposal to offer two new concepts to analyze the concept of vulnerability, namely understanding external conditions that trigger vulnerability and layers of vulnerability with cascading effects. Luna's conception of vulnerability is useful, which we demonstrate by applying her layered view and the new analyses in multiple contexts. We begin by outlining Luna's view and we use vignettes from healthcare involving transgender patients, the care of patients in psychiatric contexts, and research involving prisoners to illustrate how each part of Luna's concept elucidates important moral issues.

Experiences of shared decision making among patients with psychotic disorders in Norway: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process where the patient and the health professional collaborate to make decisions based on both the patient's preferences and the best available evidence. Patients with psychotic disorders are less involved in making decisions than they would like. More knowledge of these patients' experiences of SDM may improve implementation. The study aim was to describe and explore experiences of SDM among patients with psychotic disorders in mental health care.

METHODS

Individual interviews were conducted with ten persons with a psychotic disorder. They were service users of two community mental health centres. The transcribed material was analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Four-fifths of the participants in this study found that they received insufficient information about their health situation and treatment options. All participants experienced that only one kind of treatment was often presented, which was usually medication. Although the study found that different degrees of involvement were practised, two thirds of the participants had little impact on choices to be made. This was despite the fact that they wanted to participate and felt capable of participating, even during periods of more severe illness. The participants described how important it was that SDM in psychosis was based on a trusting relationship, but stated that it took time to establish such a relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

This study with ten participants indicates that patients with psychotic disorders experienced that they were not allowed to participate as much as they wanted to and believed they were capable of. Some patients were involved, but to a lesser degree than in SDM. More and better tailored information communicated within a trusting relationship is needed to provide psychotic patients with a better basis for active involvement in decisions about their health care.

Efficacy of Pharmaceutical Care in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The rates of treatment adherence and treat-to-target rates of blood pressure and blood glucose-related indexes in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are associated with prognosis. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of pharmaceutical care postdischarge for treatment adherence in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled trial of patients with combined T2DM and hypertension treated between January and May 2018. Pharmaceutical care included free access to a clinical pharmacist, education material, a WeChat account for live discussion, and a telephone follow-up. The primary endpoint was the 3-month medication adherence. The secondary endpoints included the achieving levels of target rates and values of fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2 h postprandial glucose (2hPG), and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and the rates of reaching the achieving target rate of blood pressure target <130/80.

RESULTS

In 80 participants, the 3-month medication adherence was higher in the pharmaceutical care group than the routine group (90.0% vs. 52.5%, P < 0.001). In terms of FPG, 2hPG, and HbA1c, there were also significant differences between the pharmaceutical care and routine groups (FPG, 6.50 (6.00, 7.18) vs. 7.00 (6.83, 7.78) mmol/L, P=0.004; 2hPG, 8.45 (7.45, 9.28) vs. 9.35 (8.23, 10.15), P=0.007; HbA1c, 6.5% (6.3%, 7.0%) vs. 7.0% (6.5%, 7.4%), P=0.007). The achieving target rate of reaching the blood pressure target in the pharmaceutical care group (92.5%) was significantly higher than that in the routine group (62.5%; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The postdischarge pharmaceutical care program in patients with T2DM and hypertension improves medication adherence.

NICE shared decision making guidelines and mental health: challenges for research, practice and implementation

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) initiated an ambitious effort to develop the first shared decision making guidelines. The purpose of this commentary is to identify three main concerns pertaining to the new published guidelines for shared decision making research, practice, implementation and cultural differences in mental health.

What Is the Capacity of Individuals with Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder to Make Healthcare Decisions? An Exploratory Study of the Views of Patients, Psychiatrists, and Family Caregivers—A Survey on Decisional Capacity in Mental Health

Background: Research on the decisional capacity of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients mostly reflects the hospital context. Aim: To describe the views of patients, psychiatrists, and caregivers on the capacity of individuals with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder to make everyday decisions on their care related to their illness. Methods: A survey was conducted among schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients, psychiatrists, and caregivers (June 2019 to January 2020; seven countries). A questionnaire was emailed to members of the Global Alliance of Mental Illness of Advocacy Network—Europe (GAMIAN; patients) and the European Federation of Families of People with Mental Illness (EUFAMI; caregivers) and to psychiatrists who voluntarily agreed to participate. Questions referred to patients’ involvement and capacity for healthcare decision making, and to barriers to and opportunities for autonomous decision making. Frequency, agreement, and importance were rated on Likert scales. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results: 21 schizophrenia or bipolar disorder patients (52.3% female; mean age (years) ± SD: 50.71 ± 12.02), 11 psychiatrists (18.2% female), and 15 caregivers (86.6% female; 100% family related) participated in the survey. In total, 86% of patients felt frequently involved in decisions about everyday care and medications, and 91% of psychiatrists and 40% of caregivers perceived the same; 38% of patients felt frequently involved in decisions about the use of acute symptom medications, and 57% on care planning, and 55% and 82% of psychiatrists, and 40% and 53% of caregivers, respectively, believed the same; and 86% of patients, 91% of psychiatrists, and 47% of caregivers agreed on the capacity of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder patients to value the implications of taking medicines to prevent acute psychotic crises. Poor understanding and training are barriers, while advocacy and increasing interest in patients’ needs are opportunities for increasing autonomous decision making. Conclusions: Stakeholders concur that schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients have the capacity to make everyday decisions around their care related to their illness, including acute symptom management. Barriers and opportunities exist to foster autonomous decisions among mental illness individuals.

Estimated model of psychotropic polypharmacy for bipolar disorder: Analysis using patients' and practitioners' parameters in the MUSUBI study

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to clarify the relevant factors influencing practitioners' methods of prescribing medications for bipolar disorder, in a nation-wide survey in Japan.

METHODS

The clinical records of 3130 outpatients with bipolar disorder were consecutively reviewed from 176 psychiatric outpatient clinics. Fifteen parameters, that is, five patients' including five general characteristics (sex, age, education, occupation, and social adjustment), five patients' aspects of mental functioning (onset age, comorbid mental illness, rapid-cycling, psychopathologic severity, and followed-up years), and five practitioners' characteristics (sex, age, specialist experience, clinic standing years, and location), were evaluated. The number of psychotropic drugs (mood stabilizers, antidepressants, antipsychotic drugs, anxiolytics, and hypnotics) was used as an index of pharmacotherapy. Converted data from each practitioner-unit were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seven factors (patient's social adjustment, patient's psychopathology, patient's comorbid mental disorders, patient's followed-up years, doctor's age, clinic running years, and patient's education years) were correlated to the number of psychotropic drugs. Multiple regression analysis showed that the severity of illness (poor social adjustment, and comorbid mental illness) and an intractable disease course (long followed-up years), were significantly associated with the number of psychotropic drugs.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicated that patient-related conditions affected psychotropic polypharmacy more strongly than did practitioner-related conditions.

Shared decision making for psychiatric medication management: a summary of its uptake, barriers and facilitators

The model of shared decision making with mental health patients and clinicians (doctors and pharmacists) harnesses the benefits of patients becoming partners in their own recovery through improved communication and greater self-advocacy. Shared decision making in mental health services is an emerging model of care which has not been well investigated, however it is seen as the way forward to achieving improved health outcomes for non-pharmacological and pharmacological therapy. Successful implementation of this model requires supporting the process through provision of information and training, use of decision aids, coaching in communication skills and inclusion of family and carers in the decision making process. This summary examines the application of the shared decision making model for psychiatric medication management, including barriers and facilitators.

Barriers and Enablers to Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Medication Management: A Qualitative Investigation of Clinician and Service Users' Views

Shared decisionmaking (SDM) is a recommended health communication approach in mental health settings. Yet, implementation of SDM in psychiatric consultations discussing medication management is challenging. Insufficient attention has been given to examine the views of both clinicians and service users together about the experiences of SDM in psychiatric medication management. The purpose of this paper is to examine the views of service users, community psychiatric nurses, and psychiatrists about enablers and barriers of SDM. A thematic analysis of 30 semi structured interviews with service users, psychiatrists, and community psychiatric nurses, in a community mental health team in the UK, was conducted. A service user advisory group was involved in all phases of the research cycle, including data collection, analysis, and dissemination. The results offer a detailed contextualized account of how medication decisions are made. For psychiatrists and service user participants SDM is seen as a way of enhancing service users' engagement in and control over treatment decisions. While psychiatrists value the transactional benefits of SDM, service user participants and psychiatric nurses conceptualize SDM as a long-term endeavor embedded within therapeutic partnerships. For service users these partnerships mitigate acknowledged problems of feeling unable to be fully involved during times of crisis. This study identified a range of barriers and facilitators to SDM concerning psychiatric medications from the lived experience of service users and the professional experience of clinicians. Furthermore, it indicates new potential intervention points to support SDM in psychiatric medication decisions.

Mental health professionals' experiences with shared decision-making for patients with psychotic disorders: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process whereby clinicians and patients work together to select treatments based on both the patient's preferences and clinical evidence. Although patients with psychotic disorders want to participate more in decisions regarding their care, they have limited opportunities to do so because of various barriers. Knowing about health professionals' experiences with SDM is important toward achieving successful implementation. The study aim was to describe and explore health professionals' SDM experiences with patients with psychotic disorders.

METHODS

Three focus group interviews were conducted, with a total of 18 health professionals who work at one of three Norwegian community mental health centres where patients with psychotic disorders are treated. We applied a descriptive and exploratory approach using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Health professionals primarily understand the SDM concept to mean giving patients information and presenting them with a choice between different antipsychotic medications. Among the barriers to SDM, they emphasized that patients with psychosis have a limited understanding of their health situation and that time is needed to build trust and alliances. Health professionals mainly understand patients with psychotic disorders as a group with limited abilities to make their own decisions. They also described the concept of SDM with little consideration of presenting different treatment options. Psychological or social interventions were often presented as complementary to antipsychotic medications, rather than as an alternative to them.

CONCLUSION

Health professionals' understanding of SDM is inconsistent with the definition commonly used in the literature. They consider patients with psychotic disorders to have limited abilities to participate in decisions regarding their own treatment. These findings suggest that health professionals need more theoretical and practical training in SDM.

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.

Clinicians' views of treatment types for first episode psychosis delivered in a randomised controlled trial (MAPS)

BACKGROUND

Clinicians' treatment beliefs could affect the feasibility of delivering different treatments in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). In MAPS (Managing Adolescent first Episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study), adolescents with first episode psychosis (FEP) were randomly allocated to receive either antipsychotic medication (AP), psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention [FI]), or both. We conducted a nested qualitative study to investigate clinicians' views of these treatments.

METHODS

Purposive sampling identified seventeen clinicians from CAMHS and Early Intervention services with prescribing responsibilities for 14-18 year olds at three participating MAPS sites. Individual participants were interviewed to examine their views of treatments in the MAPS trial. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive Thematic Analysis.

FINDINGS

Clinicians viewed the decision to refer adolescents to the MAPS trial as requiring careful clinical judgement. Assessment complexity and diagnostic uncertainty had to be balanced against the urgency for treatment to reduce risk and distress. Underlying influences including duty of care and treatment beliefs underpinned decisions. Clinicians consistently valued AP as the primary treatment for FEP, with CBT and/or FI seen as helpful secondary treatment options. Nevertheless, the potential harms of prescribing AP, or not, to such a young population were highlighted as being of concern in treatment decision-making, and fostered reluctance to refer into a RCT.

INTERPRETATION

The design and delivery of RCTs involving young people experiencing FEP should consider the views of responsible clinicians, recognising that perceived treatment urgency, limitations in diagnostic precision, and existing treatment beliefs may influence trial processes.

FUNDING

NIHR HTA programme (project number 15/31/04).

Patients' perspectives on shared decision making in secondary mental healthcare in Taiwan: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to explore patient perspectives on shared decision making in secondary mental healthcare in Taiwan.

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were used to explore patient perspectives on shared decision making in secondary mental healthcare in Taiwan. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted from July to August 2017 with a purposive sample of twenty patients using halfway houses. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Analysis of the interviews identified two themes: barriers to shared decision making; facilitators of shared decision making. Patients perceived that they were not involved in decision making due to: the professional status of health professionals; negative perception of making decisions; and limited time resources. However, patients reported a desire to be involved and felt sufficient information exchange would be a necessary step towards collaboration/sharing decisions about treatment with clinicians.

CONCLUSION

The findings provided an understanding of significant barriers to and facilitators of implementing shared decision making to aid further professional training and the development of national policies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The findings could be the basis for developing effective strategies to overcome barriers to shared decision making and improve the process quality of delivering shared decision making.

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

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

Shared decision-making in mental and behavioural health interventions

Elements of shared decision-making (ie, collaboration, patient preferences, and working alliance) have long been discussed and studied in the field of clinical psychology; however, research indicates that shared decision-making is not typically used in clinical practice. Instead, clinicians often rely on a paternalistic approach. In this article, we provide a narrative review of the existing research supporting shared decision-making for mental and behavioural health concerns, we discuss several barriers that impede its use in actual clinical practice, and we provide recommendations for increasing shared decision-making when working with patients.

Development of a Strategic Tool for Shared Decision-Making in the Use of Antidepressants among Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A Focus Group Study

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been recognized as an important tool in the mental health field and considered as a crucial component of patient-centered care. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a strategic tool towards the promotion and implementation of SDM in the use of antidepressants among patients with major depressive disorder. Nineteen doctors and 11 major depressive disorder patients who are involved in psychiatric outpatient clinic appointments were purposively selected and recruited to participate in one of six focus groups in a large teaching hospital in Malaysia. Focus groups were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a thematic approach to identify current views on providing information needed for SDM practice towards its implementation in near future. Patients&rsquo; and doctors&rsquo; views were organized into six major themes, which are; summary of treatment options, correct ways of taking medication, potential side effects of treatments related to patients, sharing of case study related to the treatment options, cost of treatment options, and input from pharmacist. The information may be included in the SDM tool which can be useful to inform further research efforts and developments that contribute towards the successful implementation of SDM into clinical practice.

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.

Supporting Shared Decision-making for Children's Complex Behavioral Problems: Development and User Testing of an Option Grid™ Decision Aid

There is a lack of research to guide collaborative treatment decision-making for children who have complex behavioral problems, despite the extensive use of mental health services in this population. We developed and pilot-tested a one-page Option Grid™ patient decision aid to facilitate shared decision-making for these situations. An editorial team of parents, child psychiatrists, researchers, and other stakeholders developed the scope and structure of the decision aid. Researchers included information about a carefully chosen number of psychosocial and pharmacological treatment options, using descriptions based on the best available evidence. Using semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 18), we conducted user testing with four parents and four clinical prescribers and field testing with four parents, four clinical prescribers, and two clinic administrators. The researchers coded and synthesized the interview responses using mixed inductive and deductive methods. Parents, clinicians, and administrators felt the Option Grid had significant value, although they reported that additional training and other support would be required in order to successfully implement the Option Grid and achieve shared decision-making in clinical practice.

Shared decision making in mental health: the importance for current clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

We reviewed the literature on shared decision making (regarding treatments in psychiatry), with a view to informing our understanding of the decision making process and the barriers that exist in clinical practice.

METHODS

Narrative review of published English-language articles.

RESULTS

After culling, 18 relevant articles were included. Themes identified included models of psychiatric care, benefits for patients, and barriers. There is a paucity of published studies specifically related to antipsychotic medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision making is a central part of the recovery paradigm and is of increasing importance in mental health service delivery. The field needs to better understand the basis on which decisions are reached regarding psychiatric treatments. Discrete choice experiments might be useful to inform the development of tools to assist shared decision making in psychiatry.

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.

Anticholinergic use trends in 14,013 patients with schizophrenia from three national surveys on the use of psychotropic medications in China (2002-2012)

Our previous study demonstrated that there have been changes in the patterns of prescription antipsychotic use in China over the period from 2002 to 2012. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether time trends were present for the prescription of anticholinergic medications (ACMs) during the observation period. A total of 14,013 patients with schizophrenia treated in 45 psychiatric hospitals/centers nationwide were surveyed in 2002, 2006 and 2012. Basic socio-demographic and clinical characteristics and the prescription of psychotropic drugs were recorded using a standardized protocol and data collection procedure. The frequency of ACM prescription was 25.9% in the whole sample (29.5%, 21.6%, and 27.4% in 2002, 2006 and 2012, respectively). In addition, different temporal trends were observed across age groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis of the entire sample showed that ACM prescriptions were predicted by females, outpatients, patients receiving high doses of antipsychotic medication, select study years, benzodiazepine users, patients displaying extrapyramidal side effects, as well as antipsychotic prescription patterns. Although there was more widespread use of second-generation antipsychotics over the past decade, the frequency of ACM use only slightly decreased. How to use ACM appropriately is still a therapeutic issue that needs to foster evidence-based prescription practice.

Experiences of antipsychotic use in patients with early psychosis: a two-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Non-adherence is a major public health problem despite treatment advances. Poor drug adherence in patients with psychosis is associated with more frequent relapse, re-hospitalization, increased consumption of health services and poor outcomes on a variety of measures. Adherence rate in patients with first episode psychosis have been found to vary from 40 to 60%. However, most previous studies have addressed the consequences of non-adherence rather than its potential causes. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to investigate experiential factors which may affect adherence to medication in adults with psychotic disorders, during the 24-month period after the onset of treatment.

METHODS

Twenty first episode patients (7 male, 13 female) were included in our qualitative sub-study from the ongoing TIPS2 (Early Intervention in Psychosis study). Each person participated in semi-structured interviews at 2-year follow-up. All had used antipsychotics, with some still using them. Data were analyzed within an interpretative-phenomenological framework using an established meaning condensation procedure.

RESULTS

The textual analysis revealed four main themes that affected adherence largely: 1) Positive experiences of admission, 2) Sufficient timely information, 3) Shared decision-making and 4) Changed attitudes to antipsychotics due to their beneficial effects and improved insight into illness.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported several factors to have a prominent impact on adherence to their antipsychotics. The patients do not independently choose to jeopardize their medication regime. Health care staff play an important role in maintaining good adherence by being empathetic and supportive in the admission phase, giving tailored information according to patients' condition and involving patients when making treatment decisions.

Exploring the potential implementation of a tool to enhance shared decision making (SDM) in mental health services in the United Kingdom: a qualitative exploration of the views of service users, carers and professionals

BACKGROUND

As a response to evidence that mental health service users and carers expect greater involvement in decisions about antipsychotic medication choice and prescribing, shared decision-making (SDM) has increasingly come to be viewed as an essential element of person-centred care and practice. However, this aspiration has yet to be realised in practice, as service users and carers continue to feel alienated from healthcare services. Existing understanding of the factors affecting the use of tools to support SDM is limited to inter-individual influences and wider factors affecting potential implementation are underexplored.

AIM

To explore the potential use of a tool designed to enhance collaborative antipsychotic prescribing from the perspectives of secondary care mental health service users, carers and professionals.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) using a convenience sample of 33 participants (10 mental health service users, 10 carers and 13 professionals) involved in antipsychotic prescribing in one Trust in the North of England. Participants were asked about the potential implementation of a tool to support SDM within secondary mental health services. Framework analysis incorporating the use of constant comparative method was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

The study identified a divergence in the views of service users and professionals, including a previously undocumented tendency for stakeholder groups to blame each other for potential implementation failure. This dissonance was shaped by meso and macro level influences relating to paternalism, legislative frameworks, accountability and lack of resources. Participants did not identify any macro level (policy or structural) facilitators to the use of the tool highlighting the negative impact of mental health contexts. Our study indicated that inter-individual factors are likely to be most important to implementation, given their potential to transcend meso and macro level barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of the meso and macro level influences identified areas for potential intervention, including challenging professionals' and service users' perceptions of each other, rebalancing the notion of accountability within services and introducing new means for service user feedback on the quality of SDM. Multi-level strategies for facilitating the implementation of tools to support SDM are also presented.

Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non-maleficence. It is argued that SDM is "polyvalent", a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high-quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery-supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes - social marketing and the hospitality industry - are identified.

Mental health pharmacists views on shared decision-making for antipsychotics in serious mental illness

Background People diagnosed with serious mental illnesses (SMIs) such as schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder are frequently treated with antipsychotics. National guidance advises the use of shared decision-making (SDM) in antipsychotic prescribing. There is currently little data on the opinions of health professionals on the role of SDM. Objective To explore the views and experiences of UK mental health pharmacists regarding the use of SDM in antipsychotic prescribing in people diagnosed with SMI. Setting The study was conducted by interviewing secondary care mental health pharmacists in the UK to obtain qualitative data. Methods Semi-structured interviews were recorded. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted using the method of constant comparison. Main outcome measure Themes evolving from mental health pharmacists on SDM in relation to antipsychotic prescribing in people with SMI. Results Thirteen mental health pharmacists were interviewed. SDM was perceived to be linked to positive clinical outcomes including adherence, service user satisfaction and improved therapeutic relations. Despite more prescribers and service users supporting SDM, it was not seen as being practised as widely as it could be; this was attributed to a number of barriers, most predominantly issues surrounding service user's lacking capacity to engage in SDM and time pressures on clinical staff. The need for greater effort to work around the issues, engage service users and adopt a more inter-professional approach was conveyed. Conclusion The mental health pharmacists support SDM for antipsychotic prescribing, believing that it improves outcomes. However, barriers are seen to limit implementation. More research is needed into overcoming the barriers and measuring the benefits of SDM, along with exploring a more inter-professional approach to SDM.

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.

Professional perspectives on service user and carer involvement in mental health care planning: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Involving users/carers in mental health care-planning is central to international policy initiatives yet users frequently report feeling excluded from the care planning process. Rigorous explorations of mental health professionals' experiences of care planning are lacking, limiting our understanding of this important translational gap.

OBJECTIVES

To explore professional perceptions of delivering collaborative mental health care-planning and involving service users and carers in their care.

DESIGN

Qualitative interviews and focus groups with data combined and subjected to framework analysis.

SETTING

UK secondary care mental health services.

PARTICIPANTS

51 multi-disciplinary professionals involved in care planning and recruited via study advertisements.

RESULTS

Emergent themes identified care-planning as a meaningful platform for user/carer involvement but revealed philosophical tensions between user involvement and professional accountability. Professionals emphasised their individual, relational skills as a core facilitator of involvement, highlighting some important deficiencies in conventional staff training programmes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although internationally accepted on philosophical grounds, user-involved care-planning is poorly defined and lacks effective implementation support. Its full realisation demands greater recognition of both the historical and contemporary contexts in which statutory mental healthcare occurs.

Physician attitudes toward shared decision making: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Although evidence suggests that shared decision-making (SDM) can improve patient outcomes, uptake to date has been sparse. The purpose of this review was to determine the reported opinions of physicians regarding the use of SDM in clinical practice and to identify strategies to promote uptake.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review, including papers published between 2007 and 2014.

RESULTS

The electronic search yielded 11,761 results. Following abstract review, 123 papers were selected for full text review, and 43 papers were included for analysis. Fourteen of the included studies considered SDM within the context of primary care, 25 in secondary care, and 4 in both.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians express positive attitudes toward SDM in clinical practice, although the level of support varies by clinical scenario, treatment decision and patient characteristics.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physician support for SDM is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition to facilitate meaningful SDM. In order to garner support for SDM, additional empirical evidence regarding the clinical and patient important outcomes must be established. Based on the results of this review, the authors suggest assessing the impact of SDM within the context of chronic disease management where multiple therapeutic options exist, and outcomes may be measured long-term.

The development and evaluation of a five-language multi-perspective standardised measure: clinical decision-making involvement and satisfaction (CDIS)

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a brief quantitative five-language measure of involvement and satisfaction in clinical decision-making (CDIS) - with versions for patients (CDIS-P) and staff (CDIS-S) - for use in mental health services.

METHODS

An English CDIS was developed by reviewing existing measures, focus groups, semistructured interviews and piloting. Translations into Danish, German, Hungarian and Italian followed the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force principles of good practice for translation and cultural adaptation. Psychometricevaluation involved testing the measure in secondary mental health services in Aalborg, Debrecen, London, Naples, Ulm and Zurich.

RESULTS

After appraising 14 measures, the Control Preference Scale and Satisfaction With Decision-making English-language scales were modified and evaluated in interviews (n = 9), focus groups (n = 22) and piloting (n = 16). Translations were validated through focus groups (n = 38) and piloting (n = 61). A total of 443 service users and 403 paired staff completed CDIS. The Satisfaction sub-scale had internal consistency of 0.89 (0.86-0.89 after item-level deletion) for staff and 0.90 (0.87-0.90) for service users, both continuous and categorical (utility) versions were associated with symptomatology and both staff-rated and service userrated therapeutic alliance (showing convergent validity), and not with social disability (showing divergent validity), and satisfaction predicted staff-rated (OR 2.43, 95%CI 1.54- 3.83 continuous, OR 5.77, 95%CI 1.90-17.53 utility) and service user-rated (OR 2.21, 95%CI 1.51-3.23 continuous, OR 3.13, 95%CI 1.10-8.94 utility) decision implementation two months later. The Involvement sub-scale had appropriate distribution and no floor or ceiling effects, was associated with stage of recovery, functioning and quality of life (staff only) (showing convergent validity), and not with symptomatology or social disability (showing divergent validity), and staff-rated passive involvement by the service user predicted implementation (OR 3.55, 95%CI 1.53-8.24). Relationships remained after adjusting for clustering by staff.

CONCLUSIONS

CDIS demonstrates adequate internal consistency, no evidence of item redundancy, appropriate distribution, and face, content, convergent, divergent and predictive validity. It can be recommended for research and clinical use. CDIS-P and CDIS-S in all 3 five languages can be downloaded at http://www.cedar-net.eu/instruments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN75841675.