2013 APA Gold Award: Amplifying the Voices of Individuals Who Use Mental Health Services: A Commitment to Shared Decision Making

2013 ◽  
Vol 64 (10) ◽  
pp. e7-e9 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals Key issues in the process of implementing shared decision making (DM) in mental health practice

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shulamit Ramon ◽  
Helen Brooks ◽  
Sarah Rae ◽  
Mary-Jane O’Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Health Practice ◽  
Mental Health Practice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Key Issues

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.

scholarly journals Parent/Carer-Reported Experience of Shared Decision Making at Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: A Multilevel Modelling Approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaun Liverpool ◽  
Daniel Hayes ◽  
Julian Edbrooke-Childs
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Conduct Problems ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Administrative Data ◽  
Multilevel Modelling ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Psychosocial Difficulties

Background and Objective: Shared decision making (SDM) has been associated with positive outcomes at child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). However, implementing SDM is sometimes challenging. Understanding the factors associated with parent/carer experience of SDM could provide empirical evidence to support targeted efforts to promote SDM. This study aimed to explore the frequency of parent/carer-reported experience of SDM and examine possible associations between SDM and clinician's perceptions of the (a) children's and young people's psychosocial difficulties, (b) additional complex problems, and (c) impact of the psychosocial difficulties.Methods: Secondary analysis was conducted on administrative data collected from CAMHS between 2011 and 2015. The sample was composed of 3,175 cases across 58 sites in England. Frequencies were recorded and associations were explored between clinician-reported measures and parent/carer-reported experiences of SDM using a two-level mixed-effect logistic regression analytic approach.Results: Almost 70% of parents/carers reported experiencing higher levels of SDM. Individual-level variables in model one revealed statistically significant (p <0.05) associations suggesting Asian parents/carers (OR = 1.95, 95% CI [1.4, 2.73]) and parents/carers having children with learning difficulties (OR = 1.45, 95% CI [1.06, 1.97]) were more likely to report higher levels of SDM. However, having two parents/carers involved in the child's care and treatment decisions (OR = 0.3, 95% CI [0.21, 0.44]) and being a parent/carer of a child or young person experiencing conduct problems (OR = 0.78, 95% CI [0.63, 0.98]) were associated with lower levels of SDM. When adjusting for service level data (model two) the presence of conduct problems was the only variable found to be significant and predicted lower levels of SDM (OR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.52, 0.58]).Conclusion: Multilevel modelling of CAMHS administrative data may help identify potential influencing factors to SDM. The current findings may inform useful models to better predict and support SDM.

scholarly journals Spot the difference: shared decision-making and supported decision-making in mental health

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 275-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. B. Simmons ◽  
P. M. Gooding
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Future Application ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Active Involvement ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Similarity And Difference

Respecting a person’s choices about the mental health services they do or do not use is a mark of quality support, and is often pursued for moral reasons, as a rights imperative and to improve outcomes. Yet, providing information and assistance for people making decisions about the mental health services can be a complex process, and has been approached in various ways. Two prominent approaches to this end are ‘shared decision-making’ and ‘supported decision-making’. This article considers each of these approaches, discussing points of similarity and difference and considering how the two might complement one another. By exploring the contribution that each approach can make, we conclude by proposing how future application of these approaches can account for the broader context of decisions, including support for ongoing decision-making; the multitude of service settings where decision-making occurs; and the diversity in supportive practices required to promote active involvement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document