• 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

患者与医疗专业人员在共同决策评分上的差异:一项精神卫生保健领域的横断面研究。

Discrepancy in Ratings of Shared Decision Making Between Patients and Health Professionals: A Cross Sectional Study in Mental Health Care.

作者信息

Drivenes Karin, Haaland Vegard Ø, Hauge Yina L, Vederhus John-Kåre, Irgens Audun C, Solli Kristin Klemmetsby, Regevik Hilde, Falk Ragnhild S, Tanum Lars

机构信息

Sørlandet Hospital, Kristiansand, Norway.

Hospital Pharmacies Enterprise, South Eastern Norway, Oslo, Norway.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2020 Mar 24;11:443. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00443. eCollection 2020.

DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00443
PMID:32265780
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7108784/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

A defined goal in mental health care is to increase the opportunities for patients to more actively participate in their treatment. This goal includes integrating aspects of user empowerment and shared decision-making (SDM) into treatment courses. To achieve this goal, more knowledge is needed about how patients and therapists perceive this integration.

OBJECTIVE

To explore patient experiences of SDM, to describe differences between patient and therapist experiences, and to identify patient factors that might reduce SDM experiences for patients compared to the experiences of their therapists.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 992 patients that had appointments with 267 therapists at Sørlandet Hospital, Division of Mental Health during a 1-week period. Both patients and therapists completed the CollaboRATE questionnaire, which was used to rate SDM experiences. Patients reported demographic and treatment-related information. Therapists provided clinical information.

RESULTS

The analysis included 953 patient-therapist responder pairs that completed the CollaboRATE questionnaire. The mean SDM score was 80.7 (SD 20.8) among patients, and 86.6 (SD 12.1) among therapists. Females and patients that did not use medication for mental health disorders reported higher SDM scores than males and patients that used psychiatric medications (83.3 vs. 77.7; < 0.001 and 82.6 vs. 79.8; = 0.03, respectively). Patients with diagnoses involving psychotic symptoms reported lower SDM scores than all the other patients (66.8 vs. 82.3; < 0.001). The probability that a patient would report lower SDM scores than their therapist was highest among patients that received involuntary treatment (OR 3.2, = 0.02), patients with treatment durations longer than 2.2 years (OR 1.9, = 0.001), and patients that required day care or in-patient care (OR 3.2, = 0.01 and OR 3.2, < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We showed that both therapists and patients reported good SDM experiences in decisional situations, which indicated that SDM was implemented well. However, the SDM scores reported by in-patients and patients with prolonged or involuntary treatments were significantly lower than scores reported by their therapists. Our findings suggested that it remains a struggle in mental health care to establish a common understanding between patients and therapists in decisional processes regarding treatments for some patient groups.

摘要

背景

精神卫生保健的一个明确目标是增加患者更积极参与治疗的机会。这一目标包括将用户赋权和共同决策(SDM)的各个方面纳入治疗过程。为实现这一目标,需要更多关于患者和治疗师如何看待这种整合的知识。

目的

探讨患者对共同决策的体验,描述患者与治疗师体验之间的差异,并确定与治疗师相比可能会降低患者共同决策体验的患者因素。

方法

这项横断面研究纳入了在1周内于南挪威医院精神卫生科与267名治疗师预约就诊的992名患者。患者和治疗师均完成了CollaboRATE问卷,该问卷用于对共同决策体验进行评分。患者报告了人口统计学和与治疗相关的信息。治疗师提供了临床信息。

结果

分析纳入了953对完成CollaboRATE问卷的患者 - 治疗师应答者对。患者的平均共同决策得分为80.7(标准差20.8),治疗师的平均得分为86.6(标准差12.1)。未使用精神疾病药物的女性和患者的共同决策得分高于使用精神科药物的男性和患者(分别为83.3对77.7;<0.001和82.6对79.8;=0.03)。诊断涉及精神病性症状的患者的共同决策得分低于所有其他患者(66.8对82.3;<0.001)。在接受非自愿治疗的患者(比值比3.2,=0.02)、治疗时长超过2.2年的患者(比值比1.9,=0.001)以及需要日间护理或住院护理的患者(分别为比值比3.2,=0.01和比值比3.2,<0.001)中,患者报告的共同决策得分低于其治疗师的可能性最高。

结论

我们表明,治疗师和患者在决策情境中均报告了良好的共同决策体验,这表明共同决策实施良好。然而,住院患者以及接受长期或非自愿治疗的患者报告的共同决策得分明显低于其治疗师报告的得分。我们的研究结果表明,在精神卫生保健中,对于一些患者群体,在治疗决策过程中,患者和治疗师之间达成共识仍然存在困难。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/511c/7108784/85e7fe72fb99/fpsyg-11-00443-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/511c/7108784/85e7fe72fb99/fpsyg-11-00443-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/511c/7108784/85e7fe72fb99/fpsyg-11-00443-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Discrepancy in Ratings of Shared Decision Making Between Patients and Health Professionals: A Cross Sectional Study in Mental Health Care.患者与医疗专业人员在共同决策评分上的差异:一项精神卫生保健领域的横断面研究。
Front Psychol. 2020 Mar 24;11:443. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00443. eCollection 2020.
2
Mental health professionals' experiences with shared decision-making for patients with psychotic disorders: a qualitative study.心理健康专业人员针对精神障碍患者进行共同决策的经验:一项定性研究
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Nov 27;20(1):1093. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05949-1.
3
Practitioners' positive attitudes promote shared decision-making in mental health care.从业者的积极态度促进了精神卫生保健中的共享决策。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Dec;25(6):1041-1049. doi: 10.1111/jep.13275. Epub 2019 Sep 11.
4
Assessing Shared Decision-Making in Cystic Fibrosis Care Using collaboRATE: A Cross-Sectional Study of 159 Programs.使用collaboRATE评估囊性纤维化护理中的共同决策:一项对159个项目的横断面研究。
J Patient Exp. 2021 Aug 20;8:23743735211034032. doi: 10.1177/23743735211034032. eCollection 2021.
5
Experiences of shared decision making among patients with psychotic disorders in Norway: a qualitative study.挪威精神病患者共同决策体验的定性研究。
BMC Psychiatry. 2022 Mar 17;22(1):192. doi: 10.1186/s12888-022-03849-8.
6
To what extent psychiatric patients feel involved in decision making about their mental health care? Relationships with socio-demographic, clinical, and psychological variables.精神科患者在多大程度上参与他们的精神保健决策?与社会人口学、临床和心理学变量的关系。
Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2014 Dec;26(6):372-81. doi: 10.1017/neu.2014.21. Epub 2014 Oct 7.
7
Shared decision-making for biologic treatment of autoimmune disease: influence on adherence, persistence, satisfaction, and health care costs.自身免疫性疾病生物治疗的共同决策:对依从性、持续性、满意度和医疗保健成本的影响。
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017 May 18;11:947-958. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S133222. eCollection 2017.
8
Implementation of shared decision making in physical therapy: observed level of involvement and patient preference.物理治疗中共同决策的实施:观察到的参与程度和患者偏好。
Phys Ther. 2013 Oct;93(10):1321-30. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120286. Epub 2013 May 2.
9
The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process.CollaboRATE的心理测量特性:一种快速且简洁的患者报告的共同决策过程测量方法。
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jan 3;16(1):e2. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3085.
10
Perceptions of shared decision-making in severe mental illness: An integrative review.严重精神疾病中共享决策的认知:综合评价。
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2020 Apr;27(2):103-127. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12558. Epub 2019 Dec 6.

引用本文的文献

1
Preferences for Decision-Making Style and Knowledge of and Attitudes To Recovery in Mental Health Professionals Working in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings in Routine Mental Health Practice: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study in the Danish Mental Health Services.常规精神卫生实践中住院和门诊环境下精神卫生专业人员的决策风格偏好以及对康复的认知和态度:丹麦精神卫生服务机构的一项探索性横断面研究
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2025 Sep 13. doi: 10.1007/s10488-025-01472-9.
2
Person-centred suicide prevention: key elements from the perspective of people living with suicidality.以个人为中心的自杀预防:来自有自杀倾向者视角的关键要素
Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2025 Dec;20(1):2549752. doi: 10.1080/17482631.2025.2549752. Epub 2025 Aug 28.
3

本文引用的文献

1
Perceptions of shared decision-making in severe mental illness: An integrative review.严重精神疾病中共享决策的认知:综合评价。
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2020 Apr;27(2):103-127. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12558. Epub 2019 Dec 6.
2
Giving Patients Choices During Involuntary Admission: A New Intervention.在非自愿入院期间给予患者选择权:一项新干预措施。
Front Psychiatry. 2019 Jul 4;10:433. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00433. eCollection 2019.
3
Interpersonal trust in doctor-patient relation: Evidence from dyadic analysis and association with quality of dyadic communication.
From Idealist to Realist-Designing and Implementing Shared Decision-Making Interventions in the Choice of Antipsychotic Prescription in People Living with Psychosis (SHAPE): A Realist Review.从理想主义者到现实主义者——为精神病患者抗精神病药物处方选择设计并实施共享决策干预措施(SHAPE):一项现实主义综述
Schizophr Bull. 2025 Jul 7;51(4):916-932. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaf058.
4
From Idealist to Realist-Designing and Implementing Shared Decision-Making Interventions in the Choice of Antipsychotic Prescription in People Living With Psychosis (SHAPE): A Realist Review (Part 2-Designing SDM Interventions: Optimizing Design and Local Implementation).从理想主义者到现实主义者——为精神病患者抗精神病药物处方选择设计并实施共享决策干预措施(SHAPE):一项现实主义综述(第2部分——设计共享决策干预措施:优化设计与本地实施)
Schizophr Bull. 2025 Jul 7;51(4):932-948. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaf059.
5
Experiences of Clients and Professionals with the Recovery Oriented Intake.客户和专业人员对以康复为导向的入院体验。
Community Ment Health J. 2024 Jul;60(5):985-996. doi: 10.1007/s10597-024-01250-1. Epub 2024 Feb 24.
6
Shared decision making and associated factors among patients with psychotic disorders: a cross-sectional study.精神障碍患者的共享决策及其相关因素:一项横断面研究。
BMC Psychiatry. 2023 Oct 13;23(1):747. doi: 10.1186/s12888-023-05257-y.
7
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.
8
"It's That They Treated Me Like an Object": A Qualitative Study on the Participation of People Diagnosed with Psychotic Disorders in Their Health Care.“他们把我当物体对待”:一项关于被诊断为精神障碍的人参与其医疗保健的定性研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar 5;20(5):4614. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054614.
9
Clinical decision-making style preferences of European psychiatrists: Results from the Ambassadors survey in 38 countries.欧洲精神科医生的临床决策风格偏好:来自 38 个国家的大使调查结果。
Eur Psychiatry. 2022 Oct 21;65(1):e75. doi: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.2330.
10
MediQuit - an electronic deprescribing tool: a pilot study in German primary care; GPs' and patients' perspectives.MediQuit-一种电子减药工具:德国初级保健中的试点研究;全科医生和患者的观点。
BMC Prim Care. 2022 Sep 26;23(1):252. doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01852-2.
医患关系中的人际信任:来自对偶分析的证据及其与对偶沟通质量的关系。
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Aug;235:112391. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112391. Epub 2019 Jul 4.
4
Measuring patient and family perceptions of team processes and outcomes in healthcare teams: questionnaire development and psychometric evaluation.衡量患者及家属对医疗团队流程和结果的看法:问卷编制与心理测量学评估
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jan 6;19(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3808-0.
5
Shared decision making and experiences of patients with long-term conditions: has anything changed?慢性病患者的共同决策与经历:有什么变化吗?
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Oct 10;18(1):763. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3575-y.
6
Participation in decision-making about medication: A qualitative analysis of medication adherence.参与药物决策:药物依从性的定性分析。
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2019 Feb;28(1):181-189. doi: 10.1111/inm.12516. Epub 2018 Jun 28.
7
Congruence of therapeutic bond perceptions and its relation to treatment outcome: Within- and between-dyad effects.治疗联盟认知的一致性及其与治疗结果的关系:对-对效应。
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2018 Apr;86(4):341-353. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000280. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
8
Using CollaboRATE, a brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making: Results from three clinical settings in the United States.使用 CollaboRATE,一种简短的患者报告的共享决策测量工具:来自美国三个临床环境的结果。
Health Expect. 2018 Feb;21(1):82-89. doi: 10.1111/hex.12588. Epub 2017 Jul 5.
9
Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care.在常规精神卫生保健中实施共同决策。
World Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;16(2):146-153. doi: 10.1002/wps.20412.
10
Evaluating CollaboRATE in a clinical setting: analysis of mode effects on scores, response rates and costs of data collection.在临床环境中评估CollaboRATE:分析模式对数据收集得分、回复率和成本的影响。
BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 24;7(3):e014681. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014681.