Alana Fisher1,2, Vijaya Manicavasagar3,4, Louise Sharpe1, Rebekah Laidsaar-Powell1,2, Ilona Juraskova1,2. 1. a School of Psychology. 2. b Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), University of Sydney , New South Wales , Australia. 3. c School of Psychiatry , and. 4. d Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales , New South Wales , Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making in bipolar II disorder (BPII) is challenging, yet the decision support needs of patients and family remain unknown. AIM: To explore patient and family perspectives of treatment decision-making in BPII. METHOD: Semistructured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 28 patients with BPII-diagnosis and 13 family members with experience in treatment decision-making in the outpatient setting. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using framework methods. Participant demographics, clinical characteristics and preferences for patient decision-making involvement were assessed. RESULTS: Four inter-related themes emerged: (1) Attitudes and response to diagnosis and treatment; (2) Influences on decision-making; (3) The nature and flow of decision-making; (4) Decision support and challenges. Views differed according to patient involvement preferences, time since diagnosis and patients' current mood symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first known study to provide in-depth patient and family insights into the key factors influencing BPII treatment decision-making, and potential improvements and challenges to this process. Findings will inform the development of BPII treatment decision-making resources that better meet the informational and decision-support priorities of end users. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: This research was partly funded by a Postgraduate Research Grant awarded to the first author by the University of Sydney. No conflicts of interest declared.
BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making in bipolar II disorder (BPII) is challenging, yet the decision support needs of patients and family remain unknown. AIM: To explore patient and family perspectives of treatment decision-making in BPII. METHOD: Semistructured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 28 patients with BPII-diagnosis and 13 family members with experience in treatment decision-making in the outpatient setting. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using framework methods. Participant demographics, clinical characteristics and preferences for patient decision-making involvement were assessed. RESULTS: Four inter-related themes emerged: (1) Attitudes and response to diagnosis and treatment; (2) Influences on decision-making; (3) The nature and flow of decision-making; (4) Decision support and challenges. Views differed according to patient involvement preferences, time since diagnosis and patients' current mood symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first known study to provide in-depth patient and family insights into the key factors influencing BPII treatment decision-making, and potential improvements and challenges to this process. Findings will inform the development of BPII treatment decision-making resources that better meet the informational and decision-support priorities of end users. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: This research was partly funded by a Postgraduate Research Grant awarded to the first author by the University of Sydney. No conflicts of interest declared.
Authors: Elizabeth C Thomas; John Suarez; Alicia Lucksted; Laura Siminoff; Irene Hurford; Lisa Dixon; Maria O'Connell; Mark Salzer Journal: Early Interv Psychiatry Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 2.721