The lived experience of using psychiatric medication in the recovery process and a shared decision-making program to support it.

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia E. Deegan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Recovery Process ◽  
Psychiatric Medication ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals Achieving inclusive research priority-setting: what do people with lived experience and the public think is essential?

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Engagement of people with lived experience and members of the public is an ethically and scientifically essential component of health research. Authentic engagement means they are involved as full partners in research projects. Yet engagement as partnership is uncommon in practice, especially during priority-setting for research projects. What is needed for agenda-setting to be shared by researchers and people with lived experience and/or members of the public (or organisations representing them)? At present, little ethical guidance exists on this matter, particularly that which has been informed by the perspectives of people with lived experience and members of the public. This article provides initial evidence about what they think are essential foundations and barriers to shared decision-making in health research priority-setting and health research more broadly. Methods An exploratory, qualitative study was conducted in 2019. 22 semi-structured interviews were performed with key informants from the UK and Australia. Results Three main types of foundations were thought to be essential to have in place before shared decision-making can occur in health research priority-setting: relational, environmental, and personal. Collectively, the three types of foundations addressed many (but not all) of the barriers to power sharing identified by interviewees. Conclusions Based on study findings, suggestions are made for what researchers, engagement practitioners, research institutions, and funders should do in their policy and practice to support meaningful engagement. Finally, key international research ethics guidelines on community engagement are considered in light of study findings.

scholarly journals Recovery oriented conversations in a milieu therapeutic setting

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Ellen Andvig ◽  
◽  
Stian Biong ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Recovery Process ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Action Research Project ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Human Contact

Background: Norwegian health authorities place emphasis on recovery oriented practices in mental health services. Recovery is described as an active process with a focus on personal resources and supportive contexts. In the recovery process, the relationship between the person and the carer is of great importance. Conversation is a meaningful approach for developing a trusting relationship. Conversation also has importance in itself, because it establishes the foundation for human contact and gives the client the opportunity to be acknowledged as a person. Aim: The aim of the study was to describe and explore what health professionals focused on in recovery oriented conversations with patients in a Norwegian mental healthcare centre. Methods: This study was part of an action research project and had a qualitative and explorative design. Data were collected in multistage focus groups and were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Findings: The findings highlighted the prerequisites for conversation, the content of conversation and different views on the topics of conversation. Conclusions: The findings contribute knowledge about what promotes or inhibits recovery oriented conversations. Such conversations focus on the patients’ everyday life, appreciating them as actors in their own lives, and facilitate shared decision making processes and working with hope. The study demonstrates that individual, cultural and contextual aspects play an important part in recovery oriented conversations. Implications for practice: Practice development involves acknowledging and re-evaluating the possibilities for using conversations with patients as an approach and as a tool in person-centred and recovery oriented practices Relational competence is an essential part of enhancing recovery oriented conversation, and needs to be attended to in skills training and competence building Awareness and critical analysis of the clinical context is important to promote an active and participative patient role. Authoritarian cultures with concern about what is permitted or not may well be a barrier to shared decision making

scholarly journals Critical Issues for Psychiatric Medication Shared Decision Making with Youth and Families

2011 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 310-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan S. O'Brien ◽  
Elizabeth L. Crickard ◽  
Charles A. Rapp ◽  
Cheryl L. Holmes ◽  
Thomas P. McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Psychiatric Medication ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Critical Issues

Best Practices: A Program to Support Shared Decision Making in an Outpatient Psychiatric Medication Clinic

2008 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 603-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia E. Deegan ◽  
Charles Rapp ◽  
Mark Holter ◽  
Melody Riefer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Psychiatric Medication ◽  
Shared Decision

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Behavior Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document