Duncan Edward, Best Catherine, Hagen Suzanne
Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, The University of Stirling, Iris Murdoch Building, Stirling, Scotland, UK, FK9 4LA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;2010(1):CD007297. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007297.pub2.
One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life course. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual, their family and society. Increasingly partnership models of mental health care have been advocated and enshrined in international healthcare policy. Shared decision making is one such partnership approach. Shared decision making is a form of patient-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision. This is advocated on the basis that patients have a right to self-determination and also in the expectation that it will increase treatment adherence.
To assess the effects of provider-, consumer- or carer-directed shared decision making interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, on a range of outcomes including: patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and health service outcomes.
We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2008), EMBASE (1980 to November 2008), PsycINFO (1967 to November 2008), CINAHL (1982 to November 2008), British Nursing Index and Archive (1985 to November 2008) and SIGLE (1890 to September 2005 (database end date)). We also searched online trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials (q-RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs); and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of interventions to increase shared decision making in people with mental health conditions (by DSM or ICD-10 criteria).
Data on recruitment methods, eligibility criteria, sample characteristics, interventions, outcome measures, participant flow and outcome data from each study were extracted by one author and checked by another. Data are presented in a narrative synthesis.
We included two separate German studies involving a total of 518 participants. One study was undertaken in the inpatient treatment of schizophrenia and the other in the treatment of people newly diagnosed with depression in primary care. Regarding the primary outcomes, one study reported statistically significant increases in patient satisfaction, the other study did not. There was no evidence of effect on clinical outcomes or hospital readmission rates in either study. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was an indication that interventions to increase shared decision making increased doctor facilitation of patient involvement in decision making, and did not increase consultation times. Nor did the interventions increase patient compliance with treatment plans. Neither study reported any harms of the intervention. Definite conclusions cannot be drawn, however, on the basis of these two studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No firm conclusions can be drawn at present about the effects of shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions. There is no evidence of harm, but there is an urgent need for further research in this area.
每四个人中就有一人在其一生中会患上可诊断的心理健康疾病。这些疾病会对个人、其家庭和社会的生活产生毁灭性影响。心理健康护理的伙伴关系模式越来越多地得到倡导,并被纳入国际医疗政策。共同决策就是这样一种伙伴关系方法。共同决策是一种医患沟通形式,双方都被认为能为这一过程带来专业知识,并以伙伴关系共同做出决策。倡导这种方式的依据是患者有自决权,同时期望它能提高治疗依从性。
评估由医疗服务提供者、消费者或护理者主导的共同决策干预措施对患有心理健康疾病的各年龄段人群在一系列结果上的影响,这些结果包括:患者满意度、临床结果和卫生服务结果。
我们检索了:Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL,Cochrane图书馆2008年第4期)、MEDLINE(1950年至2008年11月)、EMBASE(1980年至2008年11月)、PsycINFO(1967年至2008年11月)、CINAHL(1982年至2008年11月)、英国护理索引及档案库(1985年至2008年11月)以及SIGLE(1890年至2005年9月(数据库截止日期))。我们还检索了在线试验注册库和相关论文的参考文献,并联系了纳入研究的作者。
随机对照试验(RCT)、半随机对照试验(q - RCT)、前后对照研究(CBA);以及中断时间序列(ITS)研究,这些研究旨在通过DSM或ICD - 10标准增加患有心理健康疾病的人群的共同决策。
一位作者提取了每项研究的招募方法、纳入标准、样本特征、干预措施、结果测量、参与者流程和结果数据,并由另一位作者进行核对。数据以叙述性综合的形式呈现。
我们纳入了两项独立的德国研究,共涉及518名参与者。一项研究针对精神分裂症的住院治疗,另一项研究针对初级保健中新诊断为抑郁症的患者的治疗。关于主要结果,一项研究报告患者满意度有统计学上的显著提高,另一项研究则没有。两项研究均未发现对临床结果或再入院率有影响的证据。关于次要结果,有迹象表明增加共同决策的干预措施提高了医生对患者参与决策的促进作用,且未增加咨询时间。这些干预措施也未提高患者对治疗计划的依从性。两项研究均未报告该干预措施有任何危害。然而,基于这两项研究无法得出明确结论。
目前关于共同决策干预措施对患有心理健康疾病人群的影响无法得出确凿结论。没有危害的证据,但该领域迫切需要进一步研究。