Samantha Sahl1,2, Maria Isabella Pontoriero3,4, Chloe Hill4, Christopher E Knoepke5,6. 1. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Alexandria, VA, USA. 2. USC Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, CA, USA. 3. Children's Hospital New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA. 4. Tulane University School of Social Work, New Orleans, LA, USA. 5. Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA. 6. Adult & Child Consortium for Outcomes Research & Delivery Science (ACCORDS), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) has been proposed as a method to improve treatment adherence, placement stability, and other youth-centric outcomes for children who have been victims of commercial sexual exploitation (CSEC). This project seeks to characterize service providers' perspectives on the adoption and implementation of SDM into treatment and placement planning decisions. METHOD: Sixteen key stakeholders who provide services for youth who have experienced CSEC in a Southern city, as well as adults who survived exploitation as children, were individually interviewed. These interviews focused on stakeholders' perspective on the appropriateness and contextual considerations regarding implementing this model to engage youth in decision-making conversations. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using group-based inductive content analysis. RESULT: While all participants acknowledged the philosophical importance of including youth in decision-making, perspectives varied on how this philosophy could be operationalized. Trauma-bonds to offenders, distrust in service systems, and policy and time constraints were discussed as potential barriers to implementation. Perceived benefits to applying this model included encouraging youth empowerment, helping youth develop decision-making skills, and strengthening relationships between youth and providers. Implementation considerations mirrored those seen in other medical and behavioral health settings, including extensive training, fidelity monitoring, enforcement through policy and legislation, and ultimately resetting the culture of services to be maximally youth inclusive. CONCLUSION: Participants supported the use of SDM to standardize the inclusion of youth in treatment and placement planning decisions. However, there exist challenges in defining exactly how to adopt this approach, and how to implement broad-scale cultural change within the service-providing community.
OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) has been proposed as a method to improve treatment adherence, placement stability, and other youth-centric outcomes for children who have been victims of commercial sexual exploitation (CSEC). This project seeks to characterize service providers' perspectives on the adoption and implementation of SDM into treatment and placement planning decisions. METHOD: Sixteen key stakeholders who provide services for youth who have experienced CSEC in a Southern city, as well as adults who survived exploitation as children, were individually interviewed. These interviews focused on stakeholders' perspective on the appropriateness and contextual considerations regarding implementing this model to engage youth in decision-making conversations. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using group-based inductive content analysis. RESULT: While all participants acknowledged the philosophical importance of including youth in decision-making, perspectives varied on how this philosophy could be operationalized. Trauma-bonds to offenders, distrust in service systems, and policy and time constraints were discussed as potential barriers to implementation. Perceived benefits to applying this model included encouraging youth empowerment, helping youth develop decision-making skills, and strengthening relationships between youth and providers. Implementation considerations mirrored those seen in other medical and behavioral health settings, including extensive training, fidelity monitoring, enforcement through policy and legislation, and ultimately resetting the culture of services to be maximally youth inclusive. CONCLUSION: Participants supported the use of SDM to standardize the inclusion of youth in treatment and placement planning decisions. However, there exist challenges in defining exactly how to adopt this approach, and how to implement broad-scale cultural change within the service-providing community.
Authors: Ross C Brownson; Julie A Jacobs; Rachel G Tabak; Christine M Hoehner; Katherine A Stamatakis Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Marian E Betz; Christopher E Knoepke; Bonnie Siry; Ashley Clement; Deborah Azrael; Stephanie Ernestus; Daniel D Matlock Journal: Inj Prev Date: 2018-10-13 Impact factor: 2.399
Authors: Dan D Matlock; Carolyn T Nowels; Frederick A Masoudi; William H Sauer; David B Bekelman; Deborah S Main; Jean S Kutner Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Dominick Frosch; Richard Thomson; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Amy Lloyd; Paul Kinnersley; Emma Cording; Dave Tomson; Carole Dodd; Stephen Rollnick; Adrian Edwards; Michael Barry Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 5.128