Professional centred shared decision making: patient decision aids in practice in primary care

Physicians' perspective on shared decision-making in Dubai: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an integral part of patient-centered delivery of care. Maximizing the opportunity of patients to participate in decisions related to their health is an expectation in care delivery nowadays. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of physicians in regard to SDM in a large private hospital network in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

METHODS

This study utilized a cross-sectional design, where a survey questionnaire was assembled to capture quantitative and qualitative data on the perception of physicians in relation to SDM. The survey instrument included three sections: the first solicited physicians' personal and professional information, the second entailed a 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), and the third included an open-ended section. Statistical analysis assessed whether the average SDM-Q-9 score differed significantly by gender, age, years of experience, professional status-generalist versus specialist, and work location-hospitals versus polyclinics. Non-parametric analysis (two independent variables) with the Mann-Whitney test was utilized. The qualitative data was thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty physicians from various specialties participated in this study (25 of each gender-85% response rate). Although the quantitative data analysis revealed that most physicians (80%) rated themselves quite highly when it comes to SDM, qualitative analysis underscored a number of barriers that limited the opportunity for SDM. Analysis identified four themes that influence the acceptability of SDM, namely physician-specific (where the physicians' extent of adopting SDM is related to their own belief system and their perception that the presence of evidence negates the need for SDM), patient-related (e.g., patients' unwillingness to be involved in decisions concerning their health), contextual/environmental (e.g., sociocultural impediments), and relational (the information asymmetry and the power gradient that influence how the physician and patient relate to one another).

CONCLUSIONS

SDM and evidence-based management (EBM) are not mutually exclusive. Professional learning and development programs targeting caregivers should focus on the consolidation of the two perspectives. We encourage healthcare managers and leaders to translate declared policies into actionable initiatives supporting patient-centered care. This could be achieved through the dedication of the necessary resources that would enable SDM, and the development of interventions that are designed both to improve health literacy and to educate patients on their rights.

US-based cross-sectional survey of clinicians' knowledge and attitudes about shared decision-making across healthcare professions and specialties

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aim to compare shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge and attitudes between US-based physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians across surgical and family medicine specialties.

SETTING

We administered a cross-sectional, web-based survey between 20 September 2017 and 1 November 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

272 US-based NPs, PA and physicians completed the survey. 250 physicians were sent a generic email invitation to participate, of whom 100 completed the survey. 3300 NPs and PAs were invited, among whom 172 completed the survey. Individuals who met the following exclusion criteria were excluded from participation: (1) lack of English proficiency; (2) area of practice other than family medicine or surgery; (3) licensure other than physician, PA or NP; (4) practicing in a country other than the US.

RESULTS

We found few substantial differences in SDM knowledge and attitudes across clinician types, revealing positive attitudes across the sample paired with low to moderate knowledge. Family medicine professionals (PAs) were most knowledgeable on several items. Very few respondents (3%; 95% CI 1.5% to 6.2%) favoured a paternalistic approach to decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent policy-level promotion of SDM may have influenced positive clinician attitudes towards SDM. Positive attitudes despite limited knowledge warrant SDM training across occupations and specialties, while encouraging all clinicians to promote SDM. Given positive attitudes and similar knowledge across clinician types, we recommend that SDM is not confined to the patient-physician dyad but instead advocated among other health professionals.

Evaluation of pelvis postural systems in spinal cord injury patients: Outcome research

OBJECTIVES

Compare three commercially available postural systems to determine the best for treatment of patients suffering from spinal cord injury lesion below the cervical spine.

DESIGN

Outcome Research.

SETTING

Ambulatory.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirteen patients were recruited for this study between March 2016 and July 2016 from the Occupational Therapy clinic of "Policlinico Umberto I" hospital in Rome and Occupational Therapy of "CPO" hospital in Ostia. The patient samples consisted of eleven men (84.6%) and two women (15.4%). All the patient are suffering by SCI with a lesion below the cervical spine.

INTERVENTION

We evaluate postural systems customized by three different companies. Patients tried each pelvis device for a duration of one week, after which they have been asked to fill in questionnaire concerning static stability, temperature, movement adaptability, transfers and dynamical stability during the activities of every-day life. The impact on the health status has been evaluated by means of a further questionnaire (Health Status Scale SF-12) submitted to the patients.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality of life and daily life activities.

RESULTS

The analysis of the data from the questionnaire, along with those of objective nature associated with the mapping of the pressure due to weight distribution, has allowed the selection of the most appropriate clinical solution.

CONCLUSION

This study has allowed two significant conclusions: the central role of the interplay between the patient and occupational therapist in the decision role and the clear evidence that patients with spinal cord injury felt definite differences between cushion stability and were able to indicate a specific typology providing the best satisfaction.

Primary goals, information-giving and men's understanding: a qualitative study of Australian and UK doctors' varied communication about PSA screening

OBJECTIVES

(1) To characterise variation in general practitioners' (GPs') accounts of communicating with men about prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, (2) to characterise GPs' reasons for communicating as they do and (3) to explain why and under what conditions GP communication approaches vary.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A grounded theory study. We interviewed 69 GPs consulting in primary care practices in Australia (n=40) and the UK (n=29).

RESULTS

GPs explained their communication practices in relation to their primary goals. In Australia, three different communication goals were reported: to encourage asymptomatic men to either have a PSA test, or not test, or alternatively, to support men to make their own decision. As well as having different primary goals, GPs aimed to provide different information (from comprehensive to strongly filtered) and to support men to develop different kinds of understanding, from population-level to 'gist' understanding. Taking into account these three dimensions (goals, information, understanding) and building on Entwistle et al's Consider an Offer framework, we derived four overarching approaches to communication: Be screened, Do not be screened, Analyse and choose, and As you wish. We also describe ways in which situational and relational factors influenced GPs' preferred communication approach.

CONCLUSION

GPs' reported approach to communicating about prostate cancer screening varies according to three dimensions-their primary goal, information provision preference and understanding sought-and in response to specific practice situations. If GP communication about PSA screening is to become more standardised in Australia, it is likely that each of these dimensions will require attention in policy and practice support interventions.

Shared decision-making at the end of life: A focus group study exploring the perceptions and experiences of multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals working in the home setting

BACKGROUND

Globally recommended in healthcare policy, Shared Decision-Making is also central to international policy promoting community palliative care. Yet realities of implementation by multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals who provide end-of-life care in the home are unclear.

AIM

To explore multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals' perceptions and experiences of Shared Decision-Making at end of life in the home.

DESIGN

Qualitative design using focus groups, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

A total of 43 participants, from multi-disciplinary community-based services in one region of the United Kingdom, were recruited.

RESULTS

While the rhetoric of Shared Decision-Making was recognised, its implementation was impacted by several interconnecting factors, including (1) conceptual confusion regarding Shared Decision-Making, (2) uncertainty in the process and (3) organisational factors which impeded Shared Decision-Making.

CONCLUSION

Multiple interacting factors influence implementation of Shared Decision-Making by professionals working in complex community settings at the end of life. Moving from rhetoric to reality requires future work exploring the realities of Shared Decision-Making practice at individual, process and systems levels.

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.

"Many miles to go …": a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Two decades of research has established the positive effect of using patient-targeted decision support interventions: patients gain knowledge, greater understanding of probabilities and increased confidence in decisions. Yet, despite their efficacy, the effectiveness of these decision support interventions in routine practice has yet to be established; widespread adoption has not occurred. The aim of this review was to search for and analyze the findings of published peer-reviewed studies that investigated the success levels of strategies or methods where attempts were made to implement patient-targeted decision support interventions into routine clinical settings.

METHODS

An electronic search strategy was devised and adapted for the following databases: ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, HMIC, Medline, Medline-in-process, OpenSIGLE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Social Services Abstracts, and the Web of Science. In addition, we used snowballing techniques. Studies were included after dual independent assessment.

RESULTS

After assessment, 5322 abstracts yielded 51 articles for consideration. After examining full-texts, 17 studies were included and subjected to data extraction. The approach used in all studies was one where clinicians and their staff used a referral model, asking eligible patients to use decision support. The results point to significant challenges to the implementation of patient decision support using this model, including indifference on the part of health care professionals. This indifference stemmed from a reported lack of confidence in the content of decision support interventions and concern about disruption to established workflows, ultimately contributing to organizational inertia regarding their adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems too early to make firm recommendations about how best to implement patient decision support into routine practice because approaches that use a 'referral model' consistently report difficulties. We sense that the underlying issues that militate against the use of patient decision support and, more generally, limit the adoption of shared decision making, are under-investigated and under-specified. Future reports from implementation studies could be improved by following guidelines, for example the SQUIRE proposals, and by adopting methods that would be able to go beyond the 'barriers' and 'facilitators' approach to understand more about the nature of professional and organizational resistance to these tools. The lack of incentives that reward the use of these interventions needs to be considered as a significant impediment.

Overdue choices: how information and role in decision-making influence women's preferences for induction for prolonged pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Enabling women to make informed decisions is a crucial component of consumer-focused maternity care. Current evidence suggests that health care practitioners' communication of care options may not facilitate patient involvement in decision-making. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of specific variations in health caregiver communication on women's preferences for induction of labor for prolonged pregnancy.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 595 female participants read a hypothetical scenario in which an obstetrician discusses induction of labor with a pregnant woman. Information provided on induction and the degree of encouragement for the woman's involvement in decision-making was manipulated to create four experimental conditions. Participants indicated preference with respect to induction, their perceptions of the quality of information received, and other potential moderating factors.

RESULTS

Participants who received information that was directive in favor of medical intervention were significantly more likely to prefer induction than those given nondirective information. No effect of level of involvement in decision-making was found. Participants' general trust in doctors moderated the relationship between health caregiver communication and preferences for induction, such that the influence of information provided on preferences for induction differed across levels of involvement in decision-making for women with a low trust in doctors, but not for those with high trust. Many women were not aware of the level of information required to make an informed decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the potential value of strategies such as patient decision aids and health care professional education to improve the quality of information available to women and their capacity for informed decision-making during pregnancy and birth.

The health professional-patient-relationship in conventional versus complementary and alternative medicine. A qualitative study comparing the perceived use of medical shared decision-making between two different approaches of medicine

OBJECTIVE

To explore differences between conventional medicine (COM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) regarding the attitude toward and the perceived use of shared decision-making (SDM) from the health professional perspective.

METHODS

Thirty guideline-based interviews with German GPs and nonmedical practitioners were conducted using qualitative analysis for interpretation.

RESULTS

The health professional-patient-relationship in CAM differs from that in COM, as SDM is perceived more often. Reasons for this include external context variables (e.g., longer consultation time) and internal provider beliefs (e.g., attitude toward SDM). German health care policy was regarded as one of the most critical factors which affected the relationship between GPs and their patients and their practice of SDM.

CONCLUSION

Differences between COM and CAM regarding the attitude toward and the perceived use of SDM are attributable to diverse concepts of medicine, practice context variables and internal provider factors. Therefore, the perceived feasibility of SDM depends on the complexity of different occupational socialization processes and thus, different value systems between COM and CAM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Implementation barriers such as insufficient communication skills, lacking SDM training or obedient patients should be reduced. Especially in COM, contextual variables such as political restrictions need to be eliminated to successfully implement SDM.

Arriba-lib: evaluation of an electronic library of decision aids in primary care physicians

Background

The successful implementation of decision aids in clinical practice initially depends on how clinicians perceive them. Relatively little is known about the acceptance of decision aids by physicians and factors influencing the implementation of decision aids from their point of view. Our electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) is to be used within the encounter and has a modular structure containing evidence-based decision aids for the following topics: cardiovascular prevention, atrial fibrillation, coronary heart disease, oral antidiabetics, conventional and intensified insulin therapy, and unipolar depression. The aim of our study was to evaluate the acceptance of arriba-lib in primary care physicians.

Methods

We conducted an evaluation study in which 29 primary care physicians included 192 patients. The physician questionnaire contained information on which module was used, how extensive steps of the shared decision making process were discussed, who made the decision, and a subjective appraisal of consultation length. We used generalised estimation equations to measure associations within patient variables and traditional crosstab analyses.

Results

Only a minority of consultations (8.9%) was considered to be unacceptably extended. In 90.6% of consultations, physicians said that a decision could be made. A shared decision was perceived by physicians in 57.1% of consultations. Physicians said that a decision was more likely to be made when therapeutic options were discussed “detailed”. Prior experience with decision aids was not a critical variable for implementation within our sample of primary care physicians.

Conclusions

Our study showed that it might be feasible to apply our electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) in the primary care context. Evidence-based decision aids offer support for physicians in the management of medical information. Future studies should monitor the long-term adoption of arriba-lib in primary care physicians.

Situationally-sensitive knowledge translation and relational decision making in hyperacute stroke: a qualitative study

Stroke is a leading cause of disability. Early treatment of acute ischaemic stroke with rtPA reduces the risk of longer term dependency but carries an increased risk of causing immediate bleeding complications. To understand the challenges of knowledge translation and decision making about treatment with rtPA in hyperacute stroke and hence to inform development of appropriate decision support we interviewed patients, their family and health professionals. The emergency setting and the symptomatic effects of hyper-acute stroke shaped the form, content and manner of knowledge translation to support decision making. Decision making about rtPA in hyperacute stroke presented three conundrums for patients, family and clinicians. 1) How to allow time for reflection in a severely time-limited setting. 2) How to facilitate knowledge translation regarding important treatment risks and benefits when patient and family capacity is blunted by the effects and shock of stroke. 3) How to ensure patient and family views are taken into account when the situation produces reliance on the expertise of clinicians. Strategies adopted to meet these conundrums were fourfold: face to face communication; shaping decisions; incremental provision of information; and communication tailored to the individual patient. Relational forms of interaction were understood to engender trust and allay anxiety. Shaping decisions with patients was understood as an expression of confidence by clinicians that helped alleviate anxiety and offered hope and reassurance to patients and their family experiencing the shock of the stroke event. Neutral presentations of information and treatment options promoted uncertainty and contributed to anxiety. ‘Drip feeding’ information created moments for reflection: clinicians literally made time. Tailoring information to the particular patient and family situation allowed clinicians to account for social and emotional contexts. The principal responses to the challenges of decision making about rtPA in hyperacute stroke were relational decision support and situationally-sensitive knowledge translation.

Effectiveness of a web-based, individually tailored decision aid for depression or acute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based, individually tailored decision aid (Patient Dialogue) on depression or acute low back pain for insurees of a German sickness fund.

METHODS

Patient Dialogue (PD) was compared to the non-tailored Static Patient Information (SPI) in an online randomized controlled trial (RCT). The primary outcome was decisional conflict; secondary outcomes included knowledge, preparation for decision-making, preference for participation, involvement in decision-making, decision regret, and adherence.

RESULTS

Out of 2480 randomized participants, 657 (26.5%) provided analyzable data immediately after using the system. Three months later, data from 131 (5.3%) participants could be included in the analysis. The PD group reported a significantly lower overall decisional conflict than the SPI group (38.7 vs. 45.1; p=0.028 via multiple imputation estimator). The largest standardized effect (Cohen's d 0.56) resulted from the preparation for decision-making (PD 59.4 vs. SPI 46.8; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

PD may be an effective tool to reduce decisional conflict and prepare participants for treatment decision-making. However, the large dropout rate needs to be taken into account.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study shows how a health insurance fund can support shared decision-making and how a decision aid can be evaluated in a RCT under routine care conditions.

Shared Decision Making Guidance Reminders in Practice (SDM-GRIP)

OBJECTIVE

Develop a system of practice tools and procedures to prompt shared decision making in primary care. SDM-GRIP (Shared Decision Making Guidance Reminders in Practice) was developed for suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), prior to the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) decision.

METHODS

Program evaluation of SDM-GRIP components: Grand Rounds, provider training (communication skills and clinical evidence), decision aid (DA), patient group visit, encounter decision guide (EDG), SDM provider visit.

RESULTS

Participation-Physician training=73% (21/29); patient group visits=25% of patients with diagnosis of CAD contacted (43/168). SDM visits=16% (27/168). Among SDM visit pairs, 82% of responding providers reported using the EDG in SDM encounters. Patients valued the SDM-GRIP program, and wanted to discuss comparative effectiveness information with a cardiologist. SDM visits were routinely reimbursed.

CONCLUSION

Program elements were well received and logistically feasible. However, recruitment to an extra educational group visit was low. Future implementation will move SDM-GRIP to the point of routine ordering of non-emergent stress tests to retain pre-decision timing of PCI and to improve coordination of care, with SDM tools available across primary care and cardiology.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Guidance prompts and provider training appear feasible. Implementation at stress testing requires further investigation.

What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies

BACKGROUND

Focus group studies are increasingly published in health related journals, but we know little about how researchers use this method, particularly how they determine the number of focus groups to conduct. The methodological literature commonly advises researchers to follow principles of data saturation, although practical advise on how to do this is lacking. Our objectives were firstly, to describe the current status of sample size in focus group studies reported in health journals. Secondly, to assess whether and how researchers explain the number of focus groups they carry out.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for studies that had used focus groups and that had been published in open access journals during 2008, and extracted data on the number of focus groups and on any explanation authors gave for this number. We also did a qualitative assessment of the papers with regard to how number of groups was explained and discussed.

RESULTS

We identified 220 papers published in 117 journals. In these papers insufficient reporting of sample sizes was common. The number of focus groups conducted varied greatly (mean 8.4, median 5, range 1 to 96). Thirty seven (17%) studies attempted to explain the number of groups. Six studies referred to rules of thumb in the literature, three stated that they were unable to organize more groups for practical reasons, while 28 studies stated that they had reached a point of saturation. Among those stating that they had reached a point of saturation, several appeared not to have followed principles from grounded theory where data collection and analysis is an iterative process until saturation is reached. Studies with high numbers of focus groups did not offer explanations for number of groups. Too much data as a study weakness was not an issue discussed in any of the reviewed papers.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these findings we suggest that journals adopt more stringent requirements for focus group method reporting. The often poor and inconsistent reporting seen in these studies may also reflect the lack of clear, evidence-based guidance about deciding on sample size. More empirical research is needed to develop focus group methodology.

Preferences for health insurance and health status: does it matter whether you are Dutch or German?

This contribution seeks to measure preferences for health insurance of individuals with and without chronic conditions in two countries, Germany and the Netherlands. The objective is to test the presumption that preferences between these two subpopulations differ and to see whether having a chronic condition has a different influence on preferences depending on the country. The evidence comes from two Discrete Choice Experiments performed in 2005 (Germany) and 2006 (the Netherlands, right after a major health reform). Results point to an even more marked resistance against restrictions of physician choice among individuals with chronic conditions in both countries. Thus, the alleged beneficiaries of Disease Management Programs would have to be highly compensated for accepting the restrictions that go with them.

Effect of informational internet web pages on patients' decision-making: randomised controlled trial regarding choice of spinal or general anaesthesia for orthopaedic surgery

This study explored whether patients' preference for particular types of anaesthesia could be influenced pre-operatively by giving them the addresses of various relevant websites. Patients at an orthopaedic pre-assessment education clinic completed a questionnaire, which included a short multiple-choice general knowledge quiz about anaesthesia, and also questioned them as to their choice of anaesthesia (general or neuraxial). Patients were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. Intervention group members were given the addresses of three relevant anaesthesia and health related websites to access at home. All patients were asked to complete the questionnaires on a second occasion, before surgery. Initially, most patients stated a preference for general anaesthesia. Subsequently, the intervention group altered their preference towards neuraxial anaesthesia compared to the control group (p < or = 0.0001). The increase in median (IQR [range]) anaesthesia knowledge test score was greater in the intervention group (from 10.0 (9.0-12.0 [5.0-14.0]) to 13.0 (11.0-14.0 [6.0-14.0])) than in the control group (from 10.0 (9.0-11.5 [3.0-13.0]) to 11.0 (9.0-12.0 [4.0-14.0]); p = 0.0068).

Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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