Expanding the concept of shared decision making for mental health: systematic search and scoping review of interventions

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaara Zisman-Ilani ◽  
Erin Barnett ◽  
Juliette Harik ◽  
Anthony Pavlo ◽  
Maria O’Connell

Purpose Much of the existing literature on shared decision making (SDM) in mental health has focused on the use of decision aids (DAs). However, DAs tend to focus on information exchange and neglect other essential elements to SDM in mental health. The purpose of this paper is to expand the review of SDM interventions in mental health by identifying important components, in addition to information exchange, that may contribute to the SDM process in mental health. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a systematic literature search using the Ovid-Medline database with supplementary scoping search of the literature on SDM in mental health treatment. To be eligible for inclusion, studies needed to describe (in a conceptual work or development paper) or evaluate (in any type of research design) a SDM intervention in mental health. The authors included studies of participants with a mental illness facing a mental health care decision, their caregivers, and providers. Findings A final sample of 31 records was systematically selected. Most interventions were developed and/or piloted in the USA for adults in community psychiatric settings. Although information exchange was a central component of the identified studies, important additional elements were: eliciting patient preferences and values, providing patient communication skills training, eliciting shared care planning, facilitating patient motivation, and eliciting patient participation in goal setting. Originality/value The review indicates that additional elements, other than information exchange such as sufficient rapport and trusting relationships, are important and needed as part of SDM in mental health. Future SDM interventions in mental health could consider including techniques that aim to increase patient involvement in activities such as goal settings, values, and preference clarification, or facilitating patient motivation, before and after presenting treatment options.

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 214-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez ◽  
Amado Rivero-Santana ◽  
Yolanda Alvarez-Perez ◽  
Yaara Zisman-Ilani ◽  
Emma Kaminskiy ◽  
...  

Purpose Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of health care in which patients are involved in the decision-making process about their treatment, considering their preferences and concerns in a deliberative process with the health care provider. Many existing instruments assess the antecedents, process, or the outcomes of SDM. The purpose of this paper is to identify the SDM-related measures applied in a mental health context. Design/methodology/approach The authors performed a systematic review in several electronic databases from 1990 to October 2016. Studies that assessed quantitatively one or more constructs related to SDM (antecedents, process, and outcomes) in the field of mental health were included. Findings The authors included 87 studies that applied 48 measures on distinct SDM constructs. A large majority of them have been developed in the field of physical diseases and adapted or directly applied in the mental health context. The most evaluated construct is the SDM process in consultation, mainly by patients’ self-report but also by external observer measures, followed by the patients’ preferences for involvement in decision making. The most applied instrument was the Autonomy Preference Index, followed by the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) and the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). The psychometric validation in mental health samples of the instruments identified is scarce. Research limitations/implications The bibliographic search is comprehensive, but could not be completely exhaustive. Effort should be invested in the development of new SDM for mental health tools that will reflect the complexity and specific features of mental health care. Originality/value The authors highlight several limitations and challenges for the measurement of SDM in mental health care.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shulamit Ramon ◽  
Helen Brooks ◽  
Sarah Rae ◽  
Mary-Jane O’Sullivan

Purpose This review paper will look at internationally existing publications in the English language on mental health shared decision making (SDM) implementation of a variety of interventions, including different methodologies and research methods, age groups and countries. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of: process, degree and outcomes of implementation; barriers and facilitators; perspectives on implementation by different stakeholders; analysis of the process of implementation in mental health services through the lenses of the normalisation process theory (NPT). Design/methodology/approach Following a targeted literature search the data were analysed in order to provide an overview of methodologies and methods applied in the articles, as well as of the variables listed above. Three different types of information were included: a content analysis of key issues, reflective understanding coming out of participating in implementation of an SDM project in the form of two narratives written by two key participants in an SDM pilot project and an NPT analysis of the process of implementation. Findings Only a minority of mental health SDM research focuses on implementation in everyday practice. It is possible and often desirable to achieve SDM in mental health services; it requires a low level of technology, it can save time once routinized, and it is based on enhancing therapeutic alliance, as well as service users’ motivation. Implementation requires an explicit policy decision, a clear procedure, and regular adherence to the aims and methods of implementation by all participants. These necessary and sufficient conditions are rarely met, due to the different levels of commitment to SDM and its process by the different key stakeholders, as well as due to competing providers’ objectives and the time allocated to achieving them. Originality/value The review indicates both the need to take into account the complexity of SDM, as well as future strategies for enhancing its implementation in everyday mental health practice. Perhaps because applying SDM reflects a major cultural change in mental health practice, current value attached to SDM among clinicians and service managers would need to be more positive, prominent and enduring to enable a greater degree of implementation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 166-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Castillo ◽  
Shulamit Ramon

Purpose While shared decision making (SDM) in general health has proven effectiveness, it has received far less attention within mental health practice with a disconnection between policy and ideals. The purpose of this paper to review existing developments, contemporary challenges, and evidence regarding SDM in mental health with a particular focus on the perspectives of service users. Design/methodology/approach This is a review of international papers analysed using narrative synthesis of relevant data bases. Findings The review shows significant barriers to the utilisation of SDM including ethical and legal frameworks, accountability and risk. The medical model of psychiatry and diagnostic stigma also contributes to a lack of professional acknowledgement of service user expertise. Service users experience an imbalance of power and feel they lack choices, being “done to” rather than “worked with”. Practical implications The paper also presents perspectives about how barriers can be overcome, and service users enabled to take back power and acknowledge their own expertise. Originality/value This review is the first with a particular focus on the perspectives of service users and SDM.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Davidson ◽  
Janis Tondora ◽  
Anthony J. Pavlo ◽  
Victoria Stanhope

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of shared decision making (SDM) as one component of recovery-oriented care. Design/methodology/approach This paper is conceptual and reviews the literature relevant to recovery-oriented care, person-centered recovery planning (PCRP), and SDM. Findings To the degree to which SDM offers tools for sharing useful information about treatment options with service users and family members or other loved ones, it can be considered a valuable addition to the recovery-oriented armamentarium. It is important to emphasize, though, that recovery-oriented practice has a broader focus on the person’s overall life in the community and is not limited to formal treatments or other professionally delivered interventions. Within the more holistic context of recovery, SDM regarding such interventions is only one tool among many, which needs to be integrated within an overall PCRP process. More emphasis is given within the recovery-oriented care to activating and equipping persons for exercising self-care and for pursuing a life they have reason to value, and the nature of the relationships required to promote such processes will be identified. In describing the nature of these relationships, it will become evident that decision making is only one of many processes that need to be shared between persons in recovery and those who accept responsibility for promoting and supporting that person’s recovery. Originality/value By viewing SDM within the context of recovery, this paper provides a framework that can assist in the implementation of SDM in routine mental health care.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Kaminskiy ◽  
Simon Senner ◽  
Johannes Hamann

Purpose Shared decision making (SDM) prioritises joint deliberation between practitioner and service user, and a respect for service-users’ experiential knowledge, values and preferences. The purpose of this paper is to review the existing literature pertaining to key stakeholders’ attitudes towards SDM in mental health. It examines whether perceived barriers and facilitators differ by group (e.g. service user, psychiatrist, nurse and social worker) and includes views of what facilitates and hinders the process for service users and practitioners. Design/methodology/approach This review adopts the principles of a qualitative research synthesis. A key word search of research published between 1990 and 2016 was undertaken. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies were included. Findings In total, 43 papers were included and several themes identified for service user and practitioner perspectives. Both practitioners and service users see SDM as an ethical imperative, and both groups highlight the need to be flexible in implementing SDM, suggesting it is context dependent. A range of challenges and barriers are presented by both practitioners and service users reflecting complex contextual and cultural features within which interactions in mental health take place. There were qualitative differences in what service users and practitioners describe as preventing or enabling SDM. The differences highlighted point towards different challenges and priorities in SDM for service users and practitioners. Originality/value The presentation of nuanced views and attitudes that practitioners and service users hold represent an important and under reported area and offer insight into the reasons for the gap between idealised policy and actual practice of SDM in mental health settings.


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 602-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric L. Swan ◽  
Andrew J. Dahl ◽  
James W. Peltier

Purpose Consumers have increased access to digital health tools such as social media, websites and marketer-controlled platforms for information sharing. Telemedicine (TM) represents an emerging omni-channel touchpoint for consumers to exchange information and inform health decision-making at a time and place of their choosing. While TM offers great potential, consumer adoption has been slower than expected. This paper aims to investigate attitudinal factors that influence adoption and usage of TM within consumers’ omni-channel decision-making environment. Design/methodology/approach Surveys from 869 patients were analyzed using multiple linear regression to examine the relationships between health decision-making, TM access benefits and omni-channel touchpoints (social media, website and internal health digital channels usage) on TM usage likelihood. Findings Attitudinal constructs related to TM’s benefits including access and health decision-making have the strongest impact on future TM usage. The study also empirically demonstrates a link between consumers’ omni-channel information seeking and TM usage. Research limitations/implications Increasing consumers’ involvement across omni-channel touchpoints has an additive effect on perceived benefits for engaging consumers in using digital offerings like TM. Future research is needed that examines the interrelationships on consumers’ health decision-making across generational cohorts and the post-adoption effects of digital service offerings. Practical implications Omni-channel touchpoints such as TM provide new opportunities to enhance shared decision-making. However, marketers need to adopt strategies that accommodate consumers’ evolving omni-channel preferences for access and information exchange to synergize digital service offerings with interpersonal touchpoints. Originality/value This study integrates shared decision-making, technology acceptance and omni-channel marketing literature to explore TM acceptance and usage within the context of consumers’ omni-channel decision process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document