Elizabeth C Thomas1,2,3,4,5,6, Shelly Ben-David1,2,3,4,5,6, Emily Treichler1,2,3,4,5,6, Stephanie Roth1,2,3,4,5,6, Lisa B Dixon1,2,3,4,5,6, Mark Salzer1,2,3,4,5,6, Yaara Zisman-Ilani1,2,3,4,5,6. 1. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia (Thomas, Salzer, Zisman-Ilani). 2. Department of Social Work, University of British Columbia, Okanagan (Ben-David). 3. Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Desert Pacific, San Diego (Treichler). 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (Treichler). 5. Ginsburg Health Sciences Library, Temple University, Philadelphia (Roth). 6. Division of Behavioral Health Services and Policies, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City (Dixon). Editor Emeritus Howard H. Goldman, M.D., Ph.D., served as decision editor on the manuscript.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model that may be particularly appealing to service users with serious mental illnesses, who often want to be involved in making decisions about their mental health care. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe and evaluate participant, intervention, methodological, and outcome characteristics of SDM intervention studies conducted within this population. METHODS: Systematic searches of the literature through April 2020 were conducted and supplemented by hand searching of reference lists of identified studies. A total of 53 independent studies of SDM interventions that were conducted with service users with serious mental illnesses and that included a quantitative or qualitative measure of the intervention were included in the review. Data were independently extracted by at least two authors. RESULTS: Most studies were conducted with middle-age, male, White individuals from Western countries. Interventions fell into the following categories: decision support tools only, multicomponent interventions involving decision support tools, multicomponent interventions not involving decision support tools, and shared care planning and preference elicitation interventions. Most studies were randomized controlled trials with sufficient sample sizes. Outcomes assessed were diverse, spanning decision-making constructs, clinical and functional, treatment engagement or adherence, and other constructs. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest important future directions for research, including the need to evaluate the impact of SDM in special populations (e.g., young adults and racial-ethnic minority groups); to expand interventions to a broader array of decisions, users, and contexts; and to establish consensus measures to assess intervention effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model that may be particularly appealing to service users with serious mental illnesses, who often want to be involved in making decisions about their mental health care. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe and evaluate participant, intervention, methodological, and outcome characteristics of SDM intervention studies conducted within this population. METHODS: Systematic searches of the literature through April 2020 were conducted and supplemented by hand searching of reference lists of identified studies. A total of 53 independent studies of SDM interventions that were conducted with service users with serious mental illnesses and that included a quantitative or qualitative measure of the intervention were included in the review. Data were independently extracted by at least two authors. RESULTS: Most studies were conducted with middle-age, male, White individuals from Western countries. Interventions fell into the following categories: decision support tools only, multicomponent interventions involving decision support tools, multicomponent interventions not involving decision support tools, and shared care planning and preference elicitation interventions. Most studies were randomized controlled trials with sufficient sample sizes. Outcomes assessed were diverse, spanning decision-making constructs, clinical and functional, treatment engagement or adherence, and other constructs. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest important future directions for research, including the need to evaluate the impact of SDM in special populations (e.g., young adults and racial-ethnic minority groups); to expand interventions to a broader array of decisions, users, and contexts; and to establish consensus measures to assess intervention effectiveness.
Entities:
Keywords:
Decision aids; Decision support; General psychiatry; Person-centered care; Research; Service delivery
Authors: Davida M Schiff; Erin C Work; Serra Muftu; Shayla Partridge; Kathryn Dee L MacMillan; Jessica R Gray; Bettina B Hoeppner; John F Kelly; Shelly F Greenfield; Hendrée E Jones; Timothy E Wilens; Mishka Terplan; Judith Bernstein Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2022-03-18
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