Search

Objective: Decision-making between mental health clinicians and patients is under-researched. We tested whether mental health patients are more satisfied with a decision made (i) using their preferred decision-making style and (ii) with a clinician with the same decision-making style preference. Method: As part of the CEDAR Study (ISRCTN75841675), a convenience sample of 445 patients with severe mental illness from six European countries were assessed for desired clinical decision-making style (rated by patients and paired clinicians), decision-specific experienced style and satisfaction. Results: Patients who experienced more involvement in decision-making than they desired rated higher satisfaction (OR = 2.47, P = 0.005, 95% CI 1.32–4.63). Decisions made with clinicians whose decision-making style preference was for more active involvement than the patient preference were rated with higher satisfaction (OR = 3.17, P = 0.003, 95% CI 1.48–6.82). Conclusion: More active involvement in decision-making than the patient stated as desired was associated with higher satisfaction. A clinical orientation towards empowering, rather than shared, decision-making may maximise satisfaction.

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non-maleficence. It is argued that SDM is “polyvalent”, a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high-quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery-supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes – social marketing and the hospitality industry – are identified.

Predefined, researcher-selected outcomes are routinely used as the clinical end-point in randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, individualised approaches may be an effective way to assess outcome in mental health research. The present study describes the development and evaluation of the Individualised Outcome Measure (IOM), which is a patient-specific outcome measure to be used for RCTs of complex interventions. IOM was developed using a narrative review, expert consultation and piloting with mental health service users (n=20). The final version of IOM comprises two components: Goal Attainment (GA) and Personalised Primary Outcome (PPO). For GA, patients identify one relevant goal at baseline and rate its attainment at follow-up. For PPO, patients choose an outcome domain related to their goal from a predefined list at baseline, and complete a standardised questionnaire assessing the chosen outcome domain at baseline and follow-up. A feasibility study indicated that IOM had adequate completion (89%) and acceptability (96%) rates in a clinical sample (n=84). IOM was then evaluated in an RCT (ISRCTN02507940). GA and PPO components were associated with each other and with the trial primary outcome. The use of the PPO component of IOM as the primary outcome could be considered in future RCTs.

Objective: Decision-making between mental health clinicians and patients is under-researched. We tested whether mental health patients are more satisfied with a decision made (i) using their preferred decision-making style and (ii) with a clinician with the same decision-making style preference. Method: As part of the CEDAR Study (ISRCTN75841675), a convenience sample of 445 patients with severe mental illness from six European countries were assessed for desired clinical decision-making style (rated by patients and paired clinicians), decision-specific experienced style and satisfaction. Results: Patients who experienced more involvement in decision-making than they desired rated higher satisfaction (OR = 2.47, P = 0.005, 95% CI 1.32–4.63). Decisions made with clinicians whose decision-making style preference was for more active involvement than the patient preference were rated with higher satisfaction (OR = 3.17, P = 0.003, 95% CI 1.48–6.82). Conclusion: More active involvement in decision-making than the patient stated as desired was associated with higher satisfaction. A clinical orientation towards empowering, rather than shared, decision-making may maximise satisfaction.

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non-maleficence. It is argued that SDM is “polyvalent”, a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high-quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery-supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes – social marketing and the hospitality industry – are identified.

Predefined, researcher-selected outcomes are routinely used as the clinical end-point in randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, individualised approaches may be an effective way to assess outcome in mental health research. The present study describes the development and evaluation of the Individualised Outcome Measure (IOM), which is a patient-specific outcome measure to be used for RCTs of complex interventions. IOM was developed using a narrative review, expert consultation and piloting with mental health service users (n=20). The final version of IOM comprises two components: Goal Attainment (GA) and Personalised Primary Outcome (PPO). For GA, patients identify one relevant goal at baseline and rate its attainment at follow-up. For PPO, patients choose an outcome domain related to their goal from a predefined list at baseline, and complete a standardised questionnaire assessing the chosen outcome domain at baseline and follow-up. A feasibility study indicated that IOM had adequate completion (89%) and acceptability (96%) rates in a clinical sample (n=84). IOM was then evaluated in an RCT (ISRCTN02507940). GA and PPO components were associated with each other and with the trial primary outcome. The use of the PPO component of IOM as the primary outcome could be considered in future RCTs.

Objective: Decision-making between mental health clinicians and patients is under-researched. We tested whether mental health patients are more satisfied with a decision made (i) using their preferred decision-making style and (ii) with a clinician with the same decision-making style preference. Method: As part of the CEDAR Study (ISRCTN75841675), a convenience sample of 445 patients with severe mental illness from six European countries were assessed for desired clinical decision-making style (rated by patients and paired clinicians), decision-specific experienced style and satisfaction. Results: Patients who experienced more involvement in decision-making than they desired rated higher satisfaction (OR = 2.47, P = 0.005, 95% CI 1.32–4.63). Decisions made with clinicians whose decision-making style preference was for more active involvement than the patient preference were rated with higher satisfaction (OR = 3.17, P = 0.003, 95% CI 1.48–6.82). Conclusion: More active involvement in decision-making than the patient stated as desired was associated with higher satisfaction. A clinical orientation towards empowering, rather than shared, decision-making may maximise satisfaction.

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non-maleficence. It is argued that SDM is “polyvalent”, a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high-quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery-supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes – social marketing and the hospitality industry – are identified.

Predefined, researcher-selected outcomes are routinely used as the clinical end-point in randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, individualised approaches may be an effective way to assess outcome in mental health research. The present study describes the development and evaluation of the Individualised Outcome Measure (IOM), which is a patient-specific outcome measure to be used for RCTs of complex interventions. IOM was developed using a narrative review, expert consultation and piloting with mental health service users (n=20). The final version of IOM comprises two components: Goal Attainment (GA) and Personalised Primary Outcome (PPO). For GA, patients identify one relevant goal at baseline and rate its attainment at follow-up. For PPO, patients choose an outcome domain related to their goal from a predefined list at baseline, and complete a standardised questionnaire assessing the chosen outcome domain at baseline and follow-up. A feasibility study indicated that IOM had adequate completion (89%) and acceptability (96%) rates in a clinical sample (n=84). IOM was then evaluated in an RCT (ISRCTN02507940). GA and PPO components were associated with each other and with the trial primary outcome. The use of the PPO component of IOM as the primary outcome could be considered in future RCTs.

Objective: Decision-making between mental health clinicians and patients is under-researched. We tested whether mental health patients are more satisfied with a decision made (i) using their preferred decision-making style and (ii) with a clinician with the same decision-making style preference. Method: As part of the CEDAR Study (ISRCTN75841675), a convenience sample of 445 patients with severe mental illness from six European countries were assessed for desired clinical decision-making style (rated by patients and paired clinicians), decision-specific experienced style and satisfaction. Results: Patients who experienced more involvement in decision-making than they desired rated higher satisfaction (OR = 2.47, P = 0.005, 95% CI 1.32–4.63). Decisions made with clinicians whose decision-making style preference was for more active involvement than the patient preference were rated with higher satisfaction (OR = 3.17, P = 0.003, 95% CI 1.48–6.82). Conclusion: More active involvement in decision-making than the patient stated as desired was associated with higher satisfaction. A clinical orientation towards empowering, rather than shared, decision-making may maximise satisfaction.

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non-maleficence. It is argued that SDM is “polyvalent”, a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high-quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery-supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes – social marketing and the hospitality industry – are identified.

Predefined, researcher-selected outcomes are routinely used as the clinical end-point in randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, individualised approaches may be an effective way to assess outcome in mental health research. The present study describes the development and evaluation of the Individualised Outcome Measure (IOM), which is a patient-specific outcome measure to be used for RCTs of complex interventions. IOM was developed using a narrative review, expert consultation and piloting with mental health service users (n=20). The final version of IOM comprises two components: Goal Attainment (GA) and Personalised Primary Outcome (PPO). For GA, patients identify one relevant goal at baseline and rate its attainment at follow-up. For PPO, patients choose an outcome domain related to their goal from a predefined list at baseline, and complete a standardised questionnaire assessing the chosen outcome domain at baseline and follow-up. A feasibility study indicated that IOM had adequate completion (89%) and acceptability (96%) rates in a clinical sample (n=84). IOM was then evaluated in an RCT (ISRCTN02507940). GA and PPO components were associated with each other and with the trial primary outcome. The use of the PPO component of IOM as the primary outcome could be considered in future RCTs.

Objective: Decision-making between mental health clinicians and patients is under-researched. We tested whether mental health patients are more satisfied with a decision made (i) using their preferred decision-making style and (ii) with a clinician with the same decision-making style preference. Method: As part of the CEDAR Study (ISRCTN75841675), a convenience sample of 445 patients with severe mental illness from six European countries were assessed for desired clinical decision-making style (rated by patients and paired clinicians), decision-specific experienced style and satisfaction. Results: Patients who experienced more involvement in decision-making than they desired rated higher satisfaction (OR = 2.47, P = 0.005, 95% CI 1.32–4.63). Decisions made with clinicians whose decision-making style preference was for more active involvement than the patient preference were rated with higher satisfaction (OR = 3.17, P = 0.003, 95% CI 1.48–6.82). Conclusion: More active involvement in decision-making than the patient stated as desired was associated with higher satisfaction. A clinical orientation towards empowering, rather than shared, decision-making may maximise satisfaction.

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non-maleficence. It is argued that SDM is “polyvalent”, a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high-quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery-supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes – social marketing and the hospitality industry – are identified.

Predefined, researcher-selected outcomes are routinely used as the clinical end-point in randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, individualised approaches may be an effective way to assess outcome in mental health research. The present study describes the development and evaluation of the Individualised Outcome Measure (IOM), which is a patient-specific outcome measure to be used for RCTs of complex interventions. IOM was developed using a narrative review, expert consultation and piloting with mental health service users (n=20). The final version of IOM comprises two components: Goal Attainment (GA) and Personalised Primary Outcome (PPO). For GA, patients identify one relevant goal at baseline and rate its attainment at follow-up. For PPO, patients choose an outcome domain related to their goal from a predefined list at baseline, and complete a standardised questionnaire assessing the chosen outcome domain at baseline and follow-up. A feasibility study indicated that IOM had adequate completion (89%) and acceptability (96%) rates in a clinical sample (n=84). IOM was then evaluated in an RCT (ISRCTN02507940). GA and PPO components were associated with each other and with the trial primary outcome. The use of the PPO component of IOM as the primary outcome could be considered in future RCTs.