Search

Objectives: Decision aids (DAs) are promising tools to foster evidence‐based shared decision‐making between practitioners and service users. Nevertheless, it is still obscure how an evidence‐based DA for people with severe mental illness, especially psychosis, should look in an inpatient treatment setting to be useful and feasible. Therefore, we conducted focus groups with psychiatrists and service users to collect and assess their expectations and wishes regarding an evidence‐based DA. From these findings, we derived immediate recommendations for the future development of DAs. Methods: We held two group interviews with service users (n = 8) and three group interviews with psychiatrists (n = 10). We used an open, large‐scale topic guide. First, we presented data from a current meta‐analysis on antipsychotics to the interviewees and, in a second step, asked for their expectations and wishes towards a DA that integrates these data. Results: Our thematic analysis revealed six key themes addressed by the respondents: (1) general considerations on the importance and usefulness of such a DA, (2) critical comments on psychiatry and psychopharmacotherapy, (3) communicative prerequisites for the use of a DA, (4) form and content of the DA, (5) data input, data processing and output as well as (6) application of the DA and possible obstacles. Conclusions: Participants identified several important features for the development of DAs for selecting antipsychotics in inpatient psychiatric treatment. The digital format was met with the greatest approval. Especially the adaptability to different needs, users and psychopathologies and the possibility to outsource information dissemination via app seemed to be a decisive convincing argument. Further research is required to test specific features of DAs to be developed in clinical settings. Patient or Public Contribution: The entire project is supported by an advisory board, including also experienced users. The members are regularly updated about the process and give important feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Peer support is increasingly recognized as crucial for improving health and psychosocial outcomes in oncological care. The integration of cancer self‐help groups (SHGs) into cancer care facilities has gained importance in recent years. Yet, there is a lack of knowledge of the extent and quality of cooperation between cancer care facilities and SHGs and their integration into routine care. The concept of self‐help friendliness (SHF) provides a feasible instrument for the measurement of cooperation and integration. Methods: A cross‐sectional study across Germany investigates the experiences of 266 leaders of cancer SHGs concerning their cooperation with cancer care facilities based on the criteria for SHF. The participatory study was developed and conducted with representatives of the House of Cancer Self‐Help and the federal associations of cancer self‐help. Results: According to the SHG leaders, about 80% of their members primarily find their way to an SHG via other patients and only less than 50% more or less frequently via hospitals or rehabilitation clinics. The quality of cooperation with cancer centres, hospitals and rehabilitation clinics, however, is rated as good to very good by more than 70% of the respondents. Nine out of 10 quality criteria for SHF are fully or at least partially implemented, the values vary between 53% and 87%. Overall, 58% of the SHG leaders feel well to be very well integrated into care facilities. Conclusions: The results show a positive assessment of the involvement of SHGs in oncological care, but differences between inpatient and outpatient care and low referrals to SHGs are prominent. The concept of SHF is a feasible solution for a systematic and measurable involvement of SHGs. Patient or Public Contribution: The perspectives and insight of patient representatives obtained through qualitative interviews were directly incorporated into this study. Representatives of cancer self‐help organizations were involved in the development of the questionnaire, reviewed it for content and comprehensibility, and further helped to recruit participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This mixed‐method study explores psychological needs, access and barriers in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients with and without mental health issues (MHI) within the German healthcare system. Methods: This study was conducted in three different healthcare settings: two hospitals, two rehabilitation clinics and three cardiology practices in Cologne, Germany. Patients were screened for angiographically documented CHD and other inclusion criteria. In total, 364 CHD patients took part in this study. It consisted of two parts: In the first part, participants filled in a newly developed questionnaire about their psychological needs, access and barriers within the healthcare system and their contact with their doctor in these matters. Then, patients were screened for MHIs with the help of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). When a score above seven was scored on the HADS, patients were additionally screened for specific MHIs using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV Axis I Disorders. In the second part, 20 participants were subsequently interviewed in a semi‐structured interview to generate more in‐depth findings. Results: The interviews show that CHD patients with and without MHI experienced a cardiac event as life‐changing and had an urgent need to talk about CHD with their doctor, mostly the general practitioner (GP). When the GP spoke to the patient shortly after the cardiac event, patients experienced relief and were better able to cope with their illness. Only 9.1% reported being aided in their search for psychotherapeutic treatment or drug treatment (4.1%). Conclusion: The needs of CHD patients with and without MHI were not adequately satisfied within our sample. Psychological measures are necessary for sufficient improvement, such as training of doctors in doctor–patient communication (e.g., better support in coping with MHI/CHD), improvements in the procedure (more time for conversations during doctor contacts), and improvement of structural requirements (referring patients faster to psychotherapists). Patient or Public Contribution: We received input from patients during pretests and used the feedback to tailor our questionnaire and the interview guidelines. Afterwards, we disseminated the main results for the patient and public involvement (e.g., public lectures, leaflets for self‐help groups, etc.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Involving patients and citizens in health care decision‐making is considered increasingly important in Germany. Participatory structures have been implemented, especially in rehabilitative care. However, it is unknown whether and to what extent German patients and citizens want to participate in decisions that exceed their own medical treatment. Objective: This study aimed to survey participation preferences and associated factors of health service users in decisions regarding rehabilitative care at micro, meso and macro levels. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 3872 former rehabilitants. We collected participation preferences using the Control Preference Scale or an adapted form. Possible influencing factors were examined using logistic regression models. Results: The response rate was 5.7% (n = 217). At all decision‐making levels, joint decision‐making was preferred. At the macro level, preferences for actively participating were the highest. Preferences were significantly interrelated between decision‐making levels. At the micro level, an orthopaedic indication significantly decreased the desire for participation compared to psychosomatic indications (odds ratio = 0.44, p =.019). Discussion: Participants wanted to be equally involved in decision‐making as experts. Higher preferences for active participation at the macro level might be due to dissatisfaction with the current health care organisation and lack of trust in politicians. Compared to the general public, our study sample was older (73.3% between 50 and 69 years) and more often chronically ill—factors associated with increased participation preferences in the literature. Conclusion: Contrary to the identified preferences, participation opportunities in the German health care system are rare. Further research on participation preferences and structures that enable meaningful involvement are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]