Literature DB >> 26148016

Service users' experiences of participation in decision making in mental health services.

P Dahlqvist Jönsson1,2, U-K Schön3, D Rosenberg4, M Sandlund4,5, P Svedberg2.   

Abstract

ACCESSIBLE
SUMMARY: Despite the potential positive impact of shared decision making on service users knowledge and experience of decisional conflict, there is a lack of qualitative research on how participation in decision making is promoted from the perspective of psychiatric service users. This study highlights the desire of users to participate more actively in decision making and demonstrates that persons with SMI struggle to be seen as competent and equal partners in decision-making situations. Those interviewed did not feel that their strengths, abilities and needs were being recognized, which resulted in a feeling of being omitted from involvement in decision-making situations. The service users describe some essential conditions that could work to promote participation in decision making. These included having personal support, having access to knowledge, being involved in a dialogue and clarity about responsibilities. Mental health nurses can play an essential role for developing and implementing shared decision making as a tool to promote recovery-oriented mental health services. ABSTRACT: Service user participation in decision making is considered an essential component of recovery-oriented mental health services. Despite the potential of shared decision making to impact service users knowledge and positively influence their experience of decisional conflict, there is a lack of qualitative research on how participation in decision making is promoted from the perspective of psychiatric service users. In order to develop concrete methods that facilitate shared decision making, there is a need for increased knowledge regarding the users' own perspective. The aim of this study was to explore users' experiences of participation in decisions in mental health services in Sweden, and the kinds of support that may promote participation. Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) was utilized to analyse group and individual interviews with 20 users with experience of serious mental illness. The core category that emerged in the analysis described a 'struggle to be perceived as a competent and equal person' while three related categories including being the underdog, being controlled and being omitted described the difficulties of participating in decisions. The data analysis resulted in a model that describes internal and external conditions that influence the promotion of participation in decision making. The findings offer new insights from a user perspective and these can be utilized to develop and investigate concrete methods in order to promote user's participation in decisions.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  grounded theory; participation; recovery; severe mental illness; shared decision making

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26148016     DOI: 10.1111/jpm.12246

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs        ISSN: 1351-0126            Impact factor:   2.952


  14 in total

1.  Patient-Centered Values and Experiences with Emergency Department and Mental Health Crisis Care.

Authors:  Kathleen C Thomas; Hillary Owino; Sana Ansari; Leslie Adams; Julianne M Cyr; Bradley N Gaynes; Seth W Glickman
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2018-07

2.  Feasibility and efficacy of shared decision making for first-admission schizophrenia: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Mio Ishii; Yasuyuki Okumura; Naoya Sugiyama; Hana Hasegawa; Toshie Noda; Yoshio Hirayasu; Hiroto Ito
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 3.630

3.  Effectiveness of a multi-facetted blended eHealth intervention during intake supporting patients and clinicians in Shared Decision Making: A cluster randomised controlled trial in a specialist mental health outpatient setting.

Authors:  Margot Metz; Iman Elfeddali; Marjolein Veerbeek; Edwin de Beurs; Aartjan Beekman; Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Empowerment and pathologization: A case study in Norwegian mental health and substance abuse services.

Authors:  Tone Larsen; Hildegunn Sagvaag
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2018-09-03       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Care pathways in the transition of patients between district psychiatric hospital centres (DPCs) and community mental health services.

Authors:  Eva W Sather; Marit F Svindseth; Paul Crawford; Valentina C Iversen
Journal:  Health Sci Rep       Date:  2018-04-10

6.  Respect, trust and continuity: A qualitative study exploring service users' experience of involvement at a Healthy Life Centre in Norway.

Authors:  Espen Sagsveen; Marit B Rise; Kjersti Grønning; Heidi Westerlund; Ola Bratås
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2018-11-24       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Qualitative investigation of relatives' and service users' experience of mental healthcare for suicidal behaviour in bipolar disorder.

Authors:  Caroline Clements; Navneet Kapur; Steven H Jones; Richard Morriss; Sarah Peters
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Ethical challenges of seclusion in psychiatric inpatient wards: a qualitative study of the experiences of Norwegian mental health professionals.

Authors:  Espen W Haugom; Torleif Ruud; Torfinn Hynnekleiv
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Mental health professionals' experiences with shared decision-making for patients with psychotic disorders: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Espen W Haugom; Bjørn Stensrud; Gro Beston; Torleif Ruud; Anne S Landheim
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  A day in the life of people with severe mental illness living in supported housing.

Authors:  Carina Tjörnstrand; Mona Eklund; Ulrika Bejerholm; Elisabeth Argentzell; David Brunt
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 3.630

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.