Embedding shared decision-making in the care of patients with severe and enduring mental health problems: The EQUIP pragmatic cluster randomised trial

Shared decision-making training embedded in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review mapped the published literature on shared decision-making (SDM) training embedded in undergraduate and/or postgraduate medical education.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review following the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched ten databases and Google Scholar and manual searched reference list in included articles. Two researchers independently screened articles and extracted data. A narrative synthesis was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

This review identified 27 studies describing 25 unique SDM programs. Most programs integrated SDM training in undergraduate education, encompassing an overview of SDM theories and enhancing skills through role-plays. The programs duration ranged from one to 24 h. Overall, they improved students' SDM knowledge, attitude, confidence and skills, but the impact for students on patients is unclear due to lack of long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The current SDM programs appear to be effectiveness in achieving short-term SDM-related outcomes. These programs were heterogeneous in their content, duration and delivery. Future research should concentrate on exploring the long-term impact of SDM programs, particularly students' application of SDM practices and patient outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Embedding SDM training in undergraduate and/or postgraduate medical education may be a practical and effective solution for current barriers to the widespread adoption of SDM.

Analysis and mapping the research landscape on patient-centred care in the context of chronic disease management

RATIONALE

Patient-centred care has emerged as a transformative approach in managing chronic diseases, aiming to actively involve patients in their healthcare decisions.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to analyse and map the research landscape on patient-centred care in the context of chronic disease management.

METHODS

This study used Scopus to retrieve the relevant articles. The analysis focused on the growth pattern, highly cited articles, randomised clinical trials, patients and providers perspectives, facilitators and barriers, frequent author keywords, emerging topics, and prolific countries and journals in the field.

RESULTS

In total, 926 research articles met the inclusion criteria. There was a notable increase in the number of publications over time. Cancer had the highest number of articles (n = 379, 40.9%), followed by diabetes mellitus, and mental health and psychiatric conditions. Studies on patient-centred care in diabetic patients received the highest number of citations. The results identified 52 randomised controlled trials that covered four major themes: patient-centred care for diabetes management, shared decision-making in mental health and primary care, shared decision-making in cancer care, and economic evaluation and cost-effectiveness. The study identified 51 studies that examined the impact of tools such as computer-based systems, decision aids, smartphone apps, and online tools to improve patient-centred outcomes. A map of author keywords showed that renal dialysis, HIV, and atrial fibrillation were the most recent topics in the field. Researchers from the United States contributed to more than half of the retrieved publications. The top active journals included "Patient Education and Counselling" and "Health Expectations".

CONCLUSION

This study provides valuable insights into the research landscape of patient-centred care within the context of chronic diseases. The current study provided a comprehensive overview of the research landscape on patient-centred care, which can empower patients by raising their awareness about clinical experiences and outcomes.

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Collaborative Care and Healthcare Usage in Families with Pediatric Patients During COVID-19: A Secondary Analysis of National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) Data

One of the most detrimental side effects of the COVID-19 pandemic is the needed but not received care. Forgone health care affects the general public, but particularly children with special care needs. Previous research focused on non-modifiable factors, such as demographic background and insurance coverage. Based on Politi and Street's model of collaborative decision-making, we explored how two modifiable communication factors contributed to the prevention of forgone pediatric care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a nationally representative sample (n = 10845) from the 2020 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) survey, we found that health-care providers' family-centered communication and shared decision-making may reduce the possibility of forgone care through improved satisfaction with providers' communication. For children with mental health needs, providers' family-centered communication may also stimulate family's capacity to openly communicate, leading to better involvement in care and timely health care seeking. This helps to address COVID-related uncertainty, prevent higher health-care expenditures, and reduce negative health outcomes.

Supported decision-making interventions in mental healthcare: A systematic review of current evidence and implementation barriers

BACKGROUND

There is a growing momentum around the world to foster greater opportunities for the involvement of mental health service users in their care and treatment planning. In-principle support for this aim is widespread across mental healthcare professionals. Yet, progress in mental health services towards this objective has lagged in practice.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method research on interventions to improve opportunities for the involvement of mental healthcare service users in treatment planning, to understand the current research evidence and the barriers to implementation.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched and 5137 articles were screened. Articles were included if they reported on an intervention for adult service users, were published between 2008 and October 2023 and were in English. Evidence in the 140 included articles was synthesised according to the JBI guidance on Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Research in this field remains exploratory in nature, with a wide range of interventions investigated to date but little experimental replication. Overarching barriers to shared and supported decision-making in mental health treatment planning were (1) Organisational (resource limitations, culture barriers, risk management priorities and structure); (2) Process (lack of knowledge, time constraints, health-related concerns, problems completing and using plans); and (3) Relationship barriers (fear and distrust for both service users and clinicians).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the barriers identified, recommendations are made to enable the implementation of new policies and programs, the designing of new tools and for clinicians seeking to practice shared and supported decision-making in the healthcare they offer.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This systematic review has been guided at all stages by a researcher with experience of mental health service use, who does not wish to be identified at this point in time. The findings may inform organisations, researchers and practitioners on implementing supported decision-making, for the greater involvement of people with mental ill health in their healthcare.

Person-Centred Decision-Making in Mental Health: A Scoping Review

Person-centred decision-making approaches in mental health care are crucial to safeguard the autonomy of the person. The use of these approaches, however, has not been fully explored beyond the clinical and policy aspects of shared and supported decision-making. The main goal is to identify and collate studies that have made an essential contribution to the understanding of shared, supported, and other decision-making approaches related to adult mental health care, and how person-centred decision-making approaches could be applied in clinical practice. A scoping review of peer-reviewed primary research was undertaken. A preliminary search and a main search were undertaken. For the main search, eight databases were explored in two rounds, between October and November 2022, and in September 2023, limited to primary research in English, Spanish or Portuguese published from October 2012 to August 2023. From a total of 12,285 studies retrieved, 21 studies were included. These research articles, which had mixed quality ratings, focused on therapeutic relationships and communication in decision-making (30%), patients' involvement in treatment decision-making (40%), and interventions for improving patients' decision-making engagement (30%). While there is promising evidence for shared decision-making in mental health care, it is important that healthcare providers use their communicational skills to enhance the therapeutic relationship and engage patients in the process. More high-quality research on supported decision-making strategies and their implementation in mental health services is also required.

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.

Development and acceptability of a decision aid for anxiety disorder considering discontinuation of benzodiazepine anxiolytic

Aim

We aimed to develop a decision aid (DA) for individuals with anxiety disorders who consider tapering benzodiazepine (BZD) anxiolytics, and if tapering, tapering BZD anxiolytics with or without cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for anxiety. We also assessed its acceptability among stakeholders.

Methods

First, we conducted a literature review regarding anxiety disorders to determine treatment options. We cited the results of the systematic review and meta-analysis, which we conducted previously, to describe the related outcomes of two options: tapering BZD anxiolytics with CBT and tapering BZD anxiolytics without CBT. Second, we developed a DA prototype in accordance with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. We carried out a mixed methods survey to assess the acceptability among stakeholders including those with anxiety disorders and healthcare providers.

Results

Our DA provided information such as explanation of anxiety disorders, options of tapering or not tapering BZD anxiolytics (if tapering, the options of tapering BZD anxiolytics with or without CBT) for anxiety disorder, benefits and risks of each option, and a worksheet for value clarification. For patients (n = 21), the DA appeared to be acceptable language (86%), adequate information (81%), and well-balanced presentation (86%). The developed DA was also acceptable for healthcare providers (n = 10).

Conclusion

We successfully created a DA for individuals with anxiety disorders who consider tapering BZD anxiolytics, which was acceptable for both patients and healthcare providers. Our DA was designed to assist patients and healthcare providers to involve decision-making about whether to taper BZD anxiolytics or not.

What Works to Improve Wellbeing? A Rapid Systematic Review of 223 Interventions Evaluated with the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scales

INTRODUCTION

The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) is a commonly used scale of mental wellbeing focusing entirely on the positive aspect of mental health. It has been widely used in a broad range of clinical and research settings, including to evaluate if interventions, programmes or pilots improve wellbeing. We aimed to systematically review all interventions that used WEMWBS and evaluate which interventions are the most effective at improving wellbeing.

METHODS

Eligible populations included children and adults, with no health or age restrictions. Any intervention study was eligible if the wellbeing outcome was measured using the 7 or 14-item WEMWBS scale assessed both pre- and post-intervention. We identified eligible intervention studies using three approaches: a database search (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PyschInfo and Web of Science from January 2007 to present), grey literature search, and by issuing a call for evidence. Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of standardised mean differences in the intervention group were used to summarise intervention effects on WEMWBS score.

RESULTS

We identified 223 interventions across 209 studies, with a total of 53,834 participants across all studies. Five main themes of interventions were synthesised: psychological (n = 80); social (n = 54); arts, culture and environment (n = 29); physical health promotion (n = 18); and other (n = 28). Psychological interventions based on resilience, wellbeing or self-management techniques had the strongest effect on wellbeing. A broad range of other interventions were effective at improving mental wellbeing, including other psychological interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy, psychoeducation and mindfulness. Medium to strong effects were also seen for person-centred support/advice (social), arts-based, parenting (social) and social prescribing interventions. However, a major limitation of the evidence was that only 75 (36%) of studies included a control group.

CONCLUSIONS

WEMWBS has been widely used to assess wellbeing across a diverse range of interventions, settings and samples. Despite substantial heterogeneity in individual intervention design, delivery and groups targeted, results indicate that a broad range of intervention types can successfully improve wellbeing. Methodological changes, such as greater use of control groups in intervention evaluation, can help future researchers and policy makers further understand what works for mental wellbeing.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

World of Change: Reflections within an educational and health care perspective in a time with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Besides handling the physical impacts of COVID-19 there is more than ever a need to understand what can help when mental health is challenged. Within this context our practical wisdom - our ability to understand and recognise when 'the other', for example the patient, is feeling lonely or anxious is particularly important.

AIM

This article aims to contribute to the understanding of how the competence of health professionals may be advanced by helping them develop the self-understanding essential to being wise practitioners.

METHOD

The article is based on a discussion informed by reflections (written in Danish and translated into English) by Masters students (and registered nurses) participating in a university programme "Patient and user focused nursing".

FINDINGS

The first part of the article considers a student nurse's reflection on understanding herself and one of her patients. The second part considers reflections on the contemporary world of change from a student nurse trying to engage with a world she experiences as falling apart. The third part addresses the impact of resonant places and encounters on developing self/other understandings; encounters that may also be produced through songs and lyrics. The final part draws conclusions on how it is possible to reach understandings of oneself and others as student health practitioners in time of a pandemic.

CONCLUSION

In the process of developing understanding and recognition, competence built on self-understanding is central for helping form health professionals into 'wise practitioners'. It is concluded that the existential implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, paradoxically, may direct many people's awareness to a more sensitive, resonant, attitude towards the other. For some, this may produce a more humanized world and perception of others. Within this perspective the arts may help us develop self-understanding and recognition of 'the other'.

Health professionals' perspectives on shared decision-making in secondary mental healthcare: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is widely recommended but has not been widely implemented in mental healthcare. There is a lack of direct evidence about health professionals' perspectives on shared decision-making in Asian cultures, particularly Taiwan. Such knowledge is of key importance to facilitate shared decision-making. Therefore, further studies are needed to clarify this issue.

AIM

To explore health professionals' perspectives of shared decision-making in secondary mental healthcare in Taiwan.

METHOD

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were used. Purposive sampling was applied to recruit health professionals. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-four health professionals were recruited. This study found the absence of shared decision-making was acceptable to them. Barriers included: powerful status of health professionals and families, patients with impaired decisional ability due to mental illness, health professionals' lack of understanding of shared decision-making, and insufficient time. Facilitators included: awareness of patients' right to autonomy and understanding of potential benefits of shared decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found that the absence of patient involvement in decision-making was widely reported. A discussion of barriers and facilitators is provided. Barriers and facilitators are highlighted to build a foundation for implementing shared decision-making in the future.

Mental health professionals' perceived barriers and enablers to shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management: a qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Risk assessment and risk management are fundamental processes in the delivery of safe and effective mental health care, yet studies have shown that service users are often not directly involved or are unaware that an assessment has taken place. Shared decision-making in mental health systems is supported by research and advocated in policy. This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42016050457) aimed to explore the perceived barriers and enablers to implementing shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management from mental health professionals' perspectives.

METHODS

PRISMA guidelines were followed in the conduct and reporting of this review. Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED and Internurse were systematically searched from inception to December 2019. Data were mapped directly into the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a psychological framework that includes 14 domains relevant to behaviour change. Thematic synthesis was used to identify potential barriers and enablers within each domain. Data were then matched to the three components of the COM-B model: Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation.

RESULTS

Twenty studies met the eligibility criteria. The findings of this review indicate that shared decision-making is not a concept commonly used in mental health services when exploring processes of risk assessment and risk management. The key barriers identified were 'power and best interest' (social influences) and 'my professional role and responsibility' (social/professional role and identity). Key enablers were 'therapeutic relationship' (social influences) and 'value collaboration' (reinforcement). The salient barriers, enablers and linked TDF domains matched COM-B components 'opportunity' and 'motivation'.

CONCLUSION

The review highlights the need for further empirical research to better understand current practice and mental health professionals' experiences and attitudes towards shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management.

Development and acceptability of a decision aid for chronic insomnia considering discontinuation of benzodiazepine hypnotics

Aim

To describe the development and acceptability of a decision aid (DA) for chronic insomnia considering discontinuation of benzodiazepine (BZD) and benzodiazepine receptor agonist (BZRA) hypnotics, and if discontinuing, tapering with or without cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT‐I).

Methods

We reviewed relevant literature describing chronic insomnia to identify options. We used the results of the systematic review and meta‐analysis conducted previously to determine the related outcomes of two options: discontinuation of BZD/BZRA hypnotics by gradual tapering alone and discontinuation of BZD/BZRA hypnotics by gradual tapering with CBT‐I. We then developed a prototype of DA following the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. A mixed methods survey was conducted to assess the acceptability among patients and healthcare providers.

Results

The prototype consisted of a description of insomnia, options of continuing or discontinuing BZD/BRZA hypnotics (if discontinuing, the options of tapering hypnotics with or without CBT‐I), pros and cons of each option, and a value clarification exercise. Patients (n = 24) reported that the DA had acceptable language (79%), adequate information (71%), and well‐balanced presentation (91%). Healthcare providers (n = 20) also provided favorable feedback.

Conclusion

We developed a DA for chronic insomnia considering discontinuation of BZD/BRZA hypnotics, which was acceptable for stakeholders. The developed DA was designed to support patients and healthcare providers to make a decision about whether to discontinue BZD/BRZA hypnotics.

A Systematic Review of Shared Decision-Making Interventions for Service Users With Serious Mental Illnesses: State of the Science and Future Directions

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model that may be particularly appealing to service users with serious mental illnesses, who often want to be involved in making decisions about their mental health care. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe and evaluate participant, intervention, methodological, and outcome characteristics of SDM intervention studies conducted within this population.

METHODS

Systematic searches of the literature through April 2020 were conducted and supplemented by hand searching of reference lists of identified studies. A total of 53 independent studies of SDM interventions that were conducted with service users with serious mental illnesses and that included a quantitative or qualitative measure of the intervention were included in the review. Data were independently extracted by at least two authors.

RESULTS

Most studies were conducted with middle-age, male, White individuals from Western countries. Interventions fell into the following categories: decision support tools only, multicomponent interventions involving decision support tools, multicomponent interventions not involving decision support tools, and shared care planning and preference elicitation interventions. Most studies were randomized controlled trials with sufficient sample sizes. Outcomes assessed were diverse, spanning decision-making constructs, clinical and functional, treatment engagement or adherence, and other constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest important future directions for research, including the need to evaluate the impact of SDM in special populations (e.g., young adults and racial-ethnic minority groups); to expand interventions to a broader array of decisions, users, and contexts; and to establish consensus measures to assess intervention effectiveness.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

What does safety in mental healthcare transitions mean for service users and other stakeholder groups: An open-ended questionnaire study

BACKGROUND

Historically, safety mental health research has tended to focus on risks of homicide, suicide and deaths. Although wider safety issues are now recognized in regards to mental health services, the safety of mental health transitions, a key research and policy priority according to World Health Organisation, has not been explored.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate perceptions of safety in mental health transitions (hospital to community) amongst five stakeholder groups.

DESIGN AND SETTING

An online, international cross-sectional, open-ended questionnaire.

PARTICIPANTS

There were five stakeholder participant groups: service users; families/carers; mental health-care professionals; researchers; and end users of research.

RESULTS

Ninety-three participants from 12 different countries responded. Three overarching themes emerged: 'individual/clinical', 'systems/services' and 'human, behavioural and social' elements of safe mental health transitions. Whilst there was a great focus on clinical elements from researchers and healthcare professionals, service users and carers considered safety in terms of human, behavioural and social elements of transitional safety (ie loneliness, emotional readiness for discharge) and systems/services (ie inter-professional communication).

DISCUSSION

Safety in mental health-care transitions is perceived differently by service users and families compared to healthcare professionals and researchers. Traditional safety indicators for care transitions such as suicide, self-harm and risk of adverse drug events are raised as important. However, service users and families in particular have a much wider perception of transitions safety.

CONCLUSION

Future quality and safety research and policy should consider including a service user voice and consider integration of psychosocial elements in discharge interventions.

'So just to go through the options…': patient choice in the telephone delivery of the NHS Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services

This article considers patient choice in mental healthcare services, specifically the ways that choice is enabled or constrained in patient-practitioner spoken interaction. Using the method of conversation analysis (CA), we examine the language used by practitioners when presenting treatment delivery options to patients entering the NHS Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service. Analysis of 66 recordings of telephone-delivered IAPT assessment sessions revealed three patterns through which choice of treatment delivery mode was presented to patients: presenting a single delivery mode; incrementally presenting alternative delivery modes, in response to patient resistance; and parallel presentation of multiple delivery mode options. We show that a distinction should be made between (i) a choice to accept or reject the offer of a single option and (ii) a choice that is a selection from a range of options. We show that the three patterns identified are ordered in terms of patient-centredness and shared decision-making. Our findings contribute to sociological work on healthcare interactions that has identified variability in, and variable consequences for, the ways that patients and practitioners negotiate choice and shared decision-making. Findings are discussed in relation to tensions between the political ideology of patient choice and practical service delivery constraints.

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.

Making shared decisions in relation to planned caesarean sections: What are we up to?

OBJECTIVE

To map the literature in relation to shared decision making (SDM) for planned caesarean section (CS), particularly women's experiences in receiving the information they need to make informed decisions, their knowledge of the risks and benefits of CS, the experiences and attitudes of clinicians in relation to SDM, and interventions that support women to make informed decisions.

METHODS

Using a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence was systematically considered. To identify studies, PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for the period from 2008 to 2018.

RESULTS

34 studies were included, with 9750 women and 3313 clinicians. Overall women reported limited SDM, and many did not have the information required to make informed decisions. Clinicians generally agreed with SDM, while recognising it often does not occur. Decision aids and educational interventions were viewed positively by women.

CONCLUSION

Many women were not actively involved in decision-making. Decision aids show promise as a SDM-enhancing tool. Studies that included clinicians suggest uncertainty regarding SDM, although willingness to engage.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Moving from clinician-led decision-making to SDM for CS has potential to improve patient experiences, however this will require considerable clinician training, and implementation of SDM interventions.

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.

Developing a core outcome set for interventions to improve discharge from mental health inpatient services: a survey, Delphi and consensus meeting with key stakeholder groups

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core set of outcomes to be used in all future studies into discharge from acute mental health services to increase homogeneity of outcome reporting.

DESIGN

We used a cross-sectional online survey with qualitative responses to derive a comprehensive list of outcomes, followed by two online Delphi rounds and a face-to-face consensus meeting.

SETTING

The setting the core outcome set applies to is acute adult mental health.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were recruited from five stakeholder groups: service users, families and carers, researchers, healthcare professionals and policymakers.

INTERVENTIONS

The core outcome set is intended for all interventions that aim to improve discharge from acute mental health services to the community.

RESULTS

Ninety-three participants in total completed the questionnaire, 69 in Delphi round 1 and 68 in round 2, with relatively even representation of groups. Eleven participants attended the consensus meeting. Service users, healthcare professionals, researchers, carers/families and end-users of research agreed on a four-item core outcome set: readmission, suicide completed, service user-reported psychological distress and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the core outcome set in future trials research will provide a framework to achieve standardisation, facilitate selection of outcome measures, allow between-study comparisons and ultimately enhance the relevance of trial or research findings to healthcare professionals, researchers, policymakers and service users.

The use of positive behaviour support plans in mental health inpatient care: A mixed methods study

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: There is a drive to use positive and proactive approaches to mental health care to reduce the use of restrictive practices such as seclusion and restraint. Positive behaviour support plans have been used successfully to do this in learning disability services, and in England, it is now a regulatory requirement that anyone with challenging behaviour should have an individualized behaviour support plan. However, positive behaviour support plans specifically have not been evaluated as part of routine mental health care and mental health nurses' and relatives' attitudes towards them are unknown. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This evaluation of positive behaviour support plans in routine mental health inpatient care found that they had not been widely implemented or completed as intended. Barriers to the use of the plans included confusion among nurses and relatives around the principles of positive behaviour support, including how, when and for whom the plans should be used, difficulties in being able to describe the function of a patient's behaviour and lack of engagement with relatives and patients. Nevertheless, nurses and relatives valued the plans, in particular for their potential to facilitate holistic care. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: To use the plans successfully, mental health nurses will need training to understand fully the rationale behind the positive behaviour support approach and will need to engage more with relatives and patients. Commitment to the approach from the whole care team and organization will be needed to implement the plans consistently for all patients. Abstract Introduction An international drive is to minimize restrictive practices in mental health care. Positive behaviour support plans (PBSPs) help staff prevent behaviour which would require restrictive intervention. Originating in learning disability services, data within mental health care are limited. Aims To evaluate PBSPs within a mental health inpatient service; understand mental health nurses' and relatives' attitudes to them; and understand the barriers and facilitators for their use in routine mental health care. Methods Mixed methods-quality ratings and interviews with relatives and nurses. Results Positive behaviour support plans were poorly implemented. Relatives and nurses valued the potential of PBSPs to facilitate holistic care, though no relative had contributed to one and not every eligible patient had one. Barriers to their use included confusion around positive behaviour support, including how, when and for whom PBSPs should be used, and difficulties describing the function of a behaviour. Discussion The potential of PBSPs to improve mental health care is recognized. However, there are barriers to their use which should be addressed to ensure that PBSPs have been properly implemented before their impact on patient care can be assessed. Implications for practice Mental health professionals implementing PBSPs should engage with relatives and patients, gain organizational commitment and ensure that those involved understand fully the positive behaviour support approach.

Psychiatric Advance Directives and their relevance to improving psychiatric care in Asian countries

People with mental illness may be unable to provide critical input about the care they wish to receive during a psychiatric crisis because of altered mental states. It is therefore imperative that clinicians seek to understand service users' wishes for care while they are well and able to provide meaningful input into the discussion. Achieving such an end may be done by discussing and completing a psychiatric advance directive. However, very few Asian countries have legislation that supports such advance directives. The present article seeks to give physicians more information about advance psychiatric directives and the potential role they could play to improve the healthcare provided in Asia to people at risk of losing capacity due to a mental illness. The degree to which mental health legislation supports psychiatric advance directives is documented for each country of South East Asia and Eastern Asia.

Negotiating support from relationships and resources: a longitudinal study examining the role of personal support networks in the management of severe and enduring mental health problems

BACKGROUND

Personal communities or personal support networks comprise a variety of social ties considered important to individuals in their everyday lives. This set of active and significant ties influence the capacity to manage mental health problems because of the potential to access social support. However, little is known in the context of people's everyday management of mental health about how relationships with people, places, objects and activities are navigated and negotiated. This study aimed to explore the nature and negotiation of support from personal communities in the everyday management of severe and enduring mental health problems.

METHODS

A longitudinal qualitative study undertaken in the UK incorporating 79 interviews with 29 participants based on personal network mapping. 29 users of mental health services with a diagnosis of severe and enduring mental illness were interviewed at three time points. Data was analysed using an inductive thematic approach underpinned by the Network Episode Model.

RESULTS

The presence and maintenance of interpersonal trust was a fundamental condition of the relational work required to develop, undertake and sustain relationships with others. Whilst relationships with spouses, family members and friends were generally viewed positively, the work required to engage human others was contingent, vicarious and overlain with felt and enacted stigma. Developing relationships with others was hindered by a lack of confidence fuelled by the experience of mental illness and a fear of rejection or failure. By contrast, weaker ties and inanimate objects and places offered and provided a sense of reliability and security. Strategies employed by participants in order to garner sufficient support for condition management in the light of these particular challenges are illuminated by the discussion of who and what is relevant and valued in personal support networks.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to valued activities, hobbies and things should be considered alongside human relationships in providing a means of ongoing support and resource for the everyday management of life for those experiencing severe and enduring mental health problems.

Training Interventions to Equip Health Care Professionals With Shared Decision-Making Skills: A Systematic Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

To support the development, implementation, and evaluation of shared decision-making (SDM) training programs, this article maps the relevant evidence in terms of training program design and content as well as evaluation outcomes.

METHOD

A systematic scoping review methodology was used. To identify studies, the databases PubMed, Medline, and CINAHL were searched from 2009 to 2019, and reference lists of included studies were examined. After removal of duplicates, 1367 articles were screened for inclusion. To be included, studies were to be published in peer-reviewed journals, and should not merely be descriptive but report on evaluation outcomes. Articles were reviewed for inclusion by both authors, and data were extracted using a purposely designed data charting form implemented using REDCap.

RESULTS

The review identified 49 studies evaluating 36 unique SDM training programs. There was considerable variation in terms of program design and duration. Most programs included an overview of SDM theories and key competencies, as well as SDM skill development through role plays. Few programs provided training in reflective practice, in identifying and working with patients' individually preferred decision-making style, or in relation to SDM in a context of medical uncertainty or ambiguity. Most programs were evaluated descriptively, mostly using mixed methods, and there were 18 randomized controlled trials, showing that training was feasible, well received, and improved participants' knowledge and skills, but was limited in its impact on patients.

DISCUSSION

Although there is limited capacity to comment on which types of training programs are most effective, overall training was feasible, well received, and improved participants' knowledge and skills.

Training to enhance user and carer involvement in mental health-care planning: the EQUIP research programme including a cluster RCT

Background

Service users and carers using mental health services want more involvement in their care and the aim of this research programme was to enhance service user and carer involvement in care planning in mental health services.

Objectives

Co-develop and co-deliver a training intervention for health professionals in community mental health teams, which aimed to enhance service user and carer involvement in care planning. Develop a patient-reported outcome measure of service user involvement in care planning, design an audit tool and assess individual preferences for key aspects of care planning involvement. Evaluate the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of the training. Understand the barriers to and facilitators of implementing service user- and carer-involved care planning. Disseminate resources to stakeholders.

Methods

A systematic review, focus groups and interviews with service users/carers/health professionals informed the training and determined the priorities underpinning involvement in care planning. Data from focus groups and interviews were combined and analysed using framework analysis. The results of the systematic review, focus groups/interviews and a review of the training interventions were synthesised to develop the final training intervention. To develop and validate the patient-reported outcome measure, items were generated from focus groups and interviews, and a psychometric analysis was conducted. Patient-reported outcome measure items and a three-round consensus exercise were used to develop an audit tool, and a stated preference survey was undertaken to assess individual preferences for key aspects of care planning. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the training were evaluated using a pragmatic cluster trial with cohort and cross-sectional samples. A nested longitudinal qualitative process evaluation using multiple methods, including semistructured interviews with key informants involved locally and nationally in mental health policy, practice and research, was undertaken. A mapping exercise was used to determine current practice, and semistructured interviews were undertaken with service users and mental health professionals from both the usual-care and the intervention arms of the trial at three time points (i.e. baseline and 6 months and 12 months post intervention).

Results

The results from focus groups (n = 56) and interviews (n = 74) highlighted a need to deliver training to increase the quality of care planning and a training intervention was developed. We recruited 402 participants to develop the final 14-item patient-reported outcome measure and a six-item audit tool. We recruited 232 participants for the stated preference survey and found that preferences were strongest for the attribute ‘my preferences for care are included in the care plan’. The training was delivered to 304 care co-ordinators working in community mental health teams across 10 NHS trusts. The cluster trial and cross-sectional survey recruited 1286 service users and 90 carers, and the primary outcome was the Health Care Climate Questionnaire. Training was positively evaluated. The results showed no statistically significant difference on the primary outcome (the Health Care Climate Questionnaire) (adjusted mean difference –0.064, 95% confidence interval –0.343 to 0.215; p = 0.654) or secondary outcomes at the 6-month follow-up. Overall, the training intervention was associated with a net saving of –£54.00 (95% confidence interval –£193.00 to £84.00), with a net quality-adjusted life-year loss of –0.014 (95% confidence interval –0.034 to 0.005). The longitudinal process evaluation recruited 54 service users, professionals and carers, finding a failure of training to become embedded in routine care.

Limitations

Our pragmatic study was designed to improve service user and care involvement in care planning among routine community mental health services. We intervened in 18 sites with > 300 care co-ordinators. However, our volunteer sites may not be fully representative of the wider population, and we lacked data with which to compare our participants with the eligible population.

Conclusions

We co-developed and co-delivered a training intervention and developed a unidimensional measure of service user and carer involvement in care planning and an audit tool. Despite a high level of satisfaction with the training, no significant effect was found; therefore, the intervention was ineffective. There was a failure of training to become embedded and normalised because of a lack of organisational readiness to accept change. Working with NHS trusts in our ‘Willing Adopters’ programme with enhanced organisational buy-in yielded some promising results.

Future work

Research should focus on developing and evaluating new organisational initiatives in addition to training health-care professionals to address contextual barriers to service and carer involvement in care planning, and explore co-designing and delivering new ways of enhancing service users’ and carers’ capabilities to engage in care planning.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16488358.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Qualitative analysis of ward staff experiences during research of a novel suicide-prevention psychological therapy for psychiatric inpatients: Understanding the barriers and facilitators

BACKGROUND

Suicide prevention is a global priority. Psychiatric hospitalization presents an opportunity to intervene positively with, for example, psychological therapies. However, evidenced-based suicide-prevention psychological treatments are rarely available on in-patient wards. Understanding staff engagement with research investigating suicide-prevention psychological treatments is crucial for their effective, efficacious, and pragmatic implementation. A pilot randomised control trial and feasibility study of Cognitive Behavioural Suicide Prevention therapy provided the opportunity for a qualitative investigation of staff experiences and views of a psychological intervention for people with suicidal experiences on psychiatric in-patient wards.

AIMS

To investigate staff acceptability of Cognitive Behavioural Suicide Prevention therapy for psychiatric inpatients based on their perceptions of their experiences during the conduct of a clinical trial.

METHOD

Transcribed audio-recordings of qualitative interviews and a focus group (n = 19) of purposively sampled staff from eight psychiatric wards were analysed using inductive Thematic Analysis.

RESULTS

Facilitators and barriers were identified for: i) the conduct of the research, and, ii) the suicide-prevention intervention (Cognitive Behavioural Suicide Prevention therapy). Research-related barriers comprised communication difficulties between staff and researchers, and increased staff workload. Research-related facilitators included effective staff/researcher relationships, and alignment of the intervention with organisational goals. Suicide-prevention intervention-related barriers comprised staffs' negative beliefs about suicide which impacted on their referral of inpatients to the clinical trial, and staff perceptions of insufficient information and unfulfilled expectations for involvement in the therapy. Facilitators included staff beliefs that the therapy was beneficial for inpatients, the service and their own clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Staff beliefs that 'suicide-talk' could precipitate suicidal behaviour resulted in covert gatekeeping and restricted referral of only inpatients judged as stable or likely to engage in therapy, which may not be those who could most benefit. Such threats to sample representativeness have implications for future therapy research design. The findings provide novel information for researchers and practitioners regarding the conduct of psychological treatment and research in psychiatric units.

'He's my mate you see': a critical discourse analysis of the therapeutic role of companion animals in the social networks of people with a diagnosis of severe mental illness

There is increasing recognition of the role pets play in the management of mental health conditions. Evidence suggests that pets promote social interaction and provide secure and intimate relationships which support the management of symptoms. This paper aimed to extend this evidence by exploring the phenomenological understanding of relationships and relationality with companion animals as therapeutic agents in the context of people's wider social networks.A qualitative study was undertaken incorporating 35 interviews with 12 participants with a diagnosis of severe mental illness who identified a pet as being important in the management of mental health. Participants took part in three in-depth interviews centred on ego network mapping over a 12-month period (baseline, 6 and 12 months). A critical discourse analysis examined therapeutic relationships with pets in relation to mental health and compared these to other types of support over time. Summative discourse analyses were combined with a cross-case thematic analysis to look for commonalities and differences across individuals.Compared with interactions with other therapeutic agents, relationships with pets were free from the obligations and complexities associated with other types of network members and provided an extension and reinforcement to an individual's sense of self which militated against the negative experiences associated with mental illness. Relationships with human network members were more variable in terms of consistency and capacity to manage demands (eg, network members requiring support themselves) and the emotions of others associated with fluctuations in mental health.This study adds weight to research supporting the inclusion of companion animals in the lexicon of mental health self-management through the therapeutic value attributed to them by participants within a wide personal network of support. The findings point to how consideration might usefully be given to how relationships with companion animals can be incorporated into healthcare planning and delivery.

The ARRIVE Trial: Interpretation from an Epidemiologic Perspective

The findings of the ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management) were recently published. This multisite randomized trial was designed to provide evidence regarding whether labor induction or expectant management is associated with increased adverse perinatal outcomes and risk of cesarean birth among healthy nulliparous women at term. The trial reported that the primary outcome, a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes, was not significantly different between the 2 groups; the principal secondary outcome, cesarean birth, was significantly more common among women whose pregnancy was expectantly managed than among women whose labor was induced at 39 weeks. These results have the potential to change existing practice. Several aspects of the study design may influence its potential internal and external validity and should be considered in order to make sound causal inferences from this trial, which will in turn affect how its findings are translated to practice. Although chance and confounding are of minimal concern, given the sample size and randomization used in the study, selection bias may be a concern. Studies are vulnerable to selection bias when the sample population differs from eligible nonparticipants, including in randomized controlled trials. External validity is defined as the extent to which the study population and setting are representative of the larger source population the study intends to represent. External validity may be limited given the characteristics of the women enrolled in the ARRIVE trial and the practice settings where the study was conducted. This brief report provides concrete suggestions for further analyses that could help solidify conclusions from the trial, and for further research questions that will continue advancement toward answering this complex question of how best to manage labor and birth decisions at full term among low-risk women.

Implementing an intervention designed to enhance service user involvement in mental health care planning: a qualitative process evaluation

PURPOSE

Shared decision-making (SDM) and the wider elements of intersecting professional and lay practices are seen as necessary components in the implementation of mental health interventions. A randomised controlled trial of a user- and carer-informed training package in the United Kingdom to enhance SDM in care planning in secondary mental health care settings showed no effect on patient-level outcomes. This paper reports on the parallel process evaluation to establish the influences on implementation at service user, carer, mental health professional and organisational levels.

METHODS

A longitudinal, qualitative process evaluation incorporating 134 semi-structured interviews with 54 mental health service users, carers and professionals was conducted. Interviews were undertaken at baseline and repeated at 6 and 12 months post-intervention. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The process evaluation demonstrated that despite buy-in from those delivering care planning in mental health services, there was a failure of training to become embedded and normalised in local provision. This was due to a lack of organisational readiness to accept change combined with an underestimation and lack of investment in the amount and range of relational work required to successfully enact the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Future aspirations of SDM enactment need to place the circumstances and everyday practices of stakeholders at the centre of implementation. Such studies should consider the historical and current context of health care relationships and include elements which seek to address these directly.