• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

加强客户在使用精神科药物目标方面的沟通。

Enhancing Clients' Communication Regarding Goals for Using Psychiatric Medications.

作者信息

Deegan Patricia E, Carpenter-Song Elizabeth, Drake Robert E, Naslund John A, Luciano Alison, Hutchison Shari L

机构信息

Dr. Deegan is with Pat Deegan Ph.D. & Associates, L.L.C., Byfield, Massachusetts (e-mail:

出版信息

Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Aug 1;68(8):771-775. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201600418. Epub 2017 Apr 3.

DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.201600418
PMID:28366118
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Discordance between psychiatric care providers' and clients' goals for medication treatment is prevalent and is a barrier to person-centered care. Power statements-short self-advocacy statements prepared by clients in response to a two-part template-offer a novel approach to help clients clarify and communicate their personal goals for using psychiatric medications. This study described the power statement method and examined a sample of power statements to understand clients' goals for medication treatment.

METHODS

More than 17,000 adults with serious mental illness at 69 public mental health clinics had the option to develop power statements by using a Web application located in the clinic waiting areas. A database query determined the percentage of clients who entered power statements into the Web application. The authors examined textual data from a random sample of 300 power statements by using content analysis.

RESULTS

Nearly 14,000 (79%) clients developed power statements. Of the 277 statements in the sample deemed appropriate for content analysis, 272 statements had responses to the first part of the template and 230 had responses to the second part. Clients wanted psychiatric medications to help control symptoms in the service of improving functioning. Common goals for taking psychiatric medications (N=230 statements) were to enhance relationships (51%), well-being (32%), self-sufficiency (23%), employment (19%), hobbies (15%), and self-improvement (10%).

CONCLUSIONS

People with serious mental illness typically viewed medications as a means to pursue meaningful life goals. Power statements appear to be a simple and scalable technique to enhance clients' communication of their goals for psychiatric medication treatment.

摘要

目的

精神科护理提供者与患者在药物治疗目标上的不一致很普遍,这是以人为本护理的障碍。权力陈述——患者根据两部分模板编写的简短自我倡导陈述——提供了一种新颖的方法,以帮助患者阐明并传达他们使用精神科药物的个人目标。本研究描述了权力陈述方法,并检查了一组权力陈述样本,以了解患者的药物治疗目标。

方法

69家公共精神卫生诊所的17000多名患有严重精神疾病的成年人可以选择通过使用位于诊所候诊区的网络应用程序来制定权力陈述。数据库查询确定了在网络应用程序中输入权力陈述的患者百分比。作者通过内容分析检查了从300份权力陈述的随机样本中获取的文本数据。

结果

近14000名(79%)患者制定了权力陈述。在样本中被认为适合进行内容分析的277份陈述中,272份陈述对模板的第一部分做出了回应,230份陈述对第二部分做出了回应。患者希望精神科药物有助于控制症状,以改善功能。服用精神科药物的常见目标(N = 230份陈述)是改善人际关系(51%)、幸福感(32%)、自给自足(23%)、就业(19%)、爱好(15%)和自我提升(10%)。

结论

患有严重精神疾病的人通常将药物视为追求有意义生活目标的手段。权力陈述似乎是一种简单且可扩展的技术,可增强患者对其精神科药物治疗目标的沟通。

相似文献

1
Enhancing Clients' Communication Regarding Goals for Using Psychiatric Medications.加强客户在使用精神科药物目标方面的沟通。
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Aug 1;68(8):771-775. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201600418. Epub 2017 Apr 3.
2
Combining technical and expert-by-experience knowledge in the quest for personal recovery from bipolar disorder: a qualitative study.结合技术和专家经验知识,追求双相情感障碍的个人康复:一项定性研究。
BMC Psychiatry. 2019 Nov 26;19(1):368. doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2357-3.
3
Clients' experiences of the Boston Psychiatric Rehabilitation Approach: a qualitative study.客户对波士顿精神病康复方法的体验:一项定性研究。
Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2014 Apr 8;9:22916. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v9.22916. eCollection 2014.
4
Use of Photovoice to Understand the Experience of Taking Psychotropic Medications.运用摄影访谈了解服用精神类药物的体验
Qual Health Res. 2017 Nov;27(13):1959-1969. doi: 10.1177/1049732317693221. Epub 2017 Mar 1.
5
Use of a computerized medication shared decision making tool in community mental health settings: impact on psychotropic medication adherence.在社区心理健康环境中使用计算机化药物共享决策工具:对精神药物依从性的影响。
Community Ment Health J. 2013 Apr;49(2):185-92. doi: 10.1007/s10597-012-9528-8. Epub 2012 Jul 27.
6
Therapeutic interactions in a medication education group. Using the psychopharmacology RACE.药物教育小组中的治疗性互动。运用精神药理学的RACE方法。
J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2001 Jun;39(6):22-30. doi: 10.3928/0279-3695-20010601-09.
7
A 2-year follow-up study of people with severe mental illness involved in psychosocial rehabilitation.一项针对参与社会心理康复的重症精神疾病患者的为期两年的随访研究。
Nord J Psychiatry. 2014 Aug;68(6):401-8. doi: 10.3109/08039488.2013.851737. Epub 2013 Nov 15.
8
Facilitators and barriers to the active participation of clients with serious mental illnesses in medication decision making: the perceptions of young adult clients.患有严重精神疾病的患者积极参与药物治疗决策的促进因素和障碍:年轻成年患者的看法
J Behav Health Serv Res. 2015 Apr;42(2):238-53. doi: 10.1007/s11414-014-9431-x.
9
Utilizing the nursing process in the development of a medication group on an inpatient psychiatric unit.在住院精神科病房开展药物治疗小组时运用护理程序。
Perspect Psychiatr Care. 1990;26(3):12-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6163.1990.tb00311.x.
10
Evaluation of a general practitioner-led cardiometabolic clinic: Physical health profile and treatment outcomes for clients on clozapine.全科医生主导的心代谢诊所评估:氯氮平治疗患者的身体健康状况和治疗效果。
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2018 Feb;27(1):303-310. doi: 10.1111/inm.12321. Epub 2017 Feb 24.

引用本文的文献

1
Navigating Power Imbalances and Stigma in Mental Healthcare. Patient-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Shared Decision-Making in Mental Health Care, a Qualitative Meta-Summary.应对精神卫生保健中的权力失衡和污名化。患者报告的参与精神卫生保健共同决策的障碍和促进因素,一项定性元综述。
Health Expect. 2025 Apr;28(2):e70239. doi: 10.1111/hex.70239.
2
Contributory Factors to Self-Disclosure in Clinical Supervision: A Meta-ethnography.临床督导中自我披露的促成因素:一项元民族志研究
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2025 Mar-Apr;32(2):e70068. doi: 10.1002/cpp.70068.
3
Supported Decision-Making Interventions in Mental Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Evidence on the Outcomes for People With Mental Ill Health.
精神卫生保健中的支持性决策干预措施:对精神疾病患者结局证据的系统评价
Health Expect. 2024 Dec;27(6):e70134. doi: 10.1111/hex.70134.
4
Supported decision-making interventions in mental healthcare: A systematic review of current evidence and implementation barriers.精神卫生保健中的支持性决策干预措施:当前证据及实施障碍的系统评价
Health Expect. 2024 Apr;27(2):e14001. doi: 10.1111/hex.14001.
5
Shifting Perspectives on the Challenges of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Care.心理健康护理中共同决策挑战的视角转变
Community Ment Health J. 2024 Feb;60(2):292-307. doi: 10.1007/s10597-023-01170-6. Epub 2023 Aug 7.
6
Goal planning in mental health service delivery: A systematic integrative review.心理健康服务提供中的目标规划:一项系统综合综述。
Front Psychiatry. 2022 Dec 19;13:1057915. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1057915. eCollection 2022.
7
Peer-Facilitated Decision Making in Mental Health: Promises, Pitfalls, and Recommendations for Research and Practice.同伴促进心理健康决策:研究与实践的承诺、陷阱和建议。
Psychiatr Serv. 2023 Apr 1;74(4):401-406. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.20220086. Epub 2022 Sep 27.
8
A Systematic Review of Shared Decision-Making Interventions for Service Users With Serious Mental Illnesses: State of the Science and Future Directions.一项针对有严重精神疾病的服务使用者的共享决策干预措施的系统评价:科学现状和未来方向。
Psychiatr Serv. 2021 Nov 1;72(11):1288-1300. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000429. Epub 2021 Aug 9.
9
Shared Decision Making in Primary Care Based Depression Treatment: Communication and Decision-Making Preferences Among an Underserved Patient Population.基层医疗中基于共享决策的抑郁症治疗:服务不足患者群体的沟通与决策偏好
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jul 12;12:681165. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.681165. eCollection 2021.
10
The Future of Peer Support in Digital Psychiatry: Promise, Progress, and Opportunities.数字精神病学中同伴支持的未来:前景、进展与机遇。
Curr Treat Options Psychiatry. 2019 Sep;6(3):221-231. doi: 10.1007/s40501-019-00179-7. Epub 2019 Jun 20.