Suppr超能文献

儿童和青少年心理健康中共享决策干预措施的系统评价:综合使用理论、干预功能和行为改变技术。

A systematic review of shared decision making interventions in child and youth mental health: synthesising the use of theory, intervention functions, and behaviour change techniques.

机构信息

Evidence Based Practice Unit, University College London and Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, 4-8 Rodney Street, London, N1 9JH, England.

Child Attachment and Psychological Therapies Research Unit (ChAPTRe), University College London and Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, 4-8 Rodney Street, London, N1 9JH, England.

出版信息

Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023 Feb;32(2):209-222. doi: 10.1007/s00787-021-01782-x. Epub 2021 Apr 22.

Abstract

Reviews around interventions to improve shared decision making (SDM) for child and youth mental health have produced inconclusive findings on what approaches increase participation. Importantly, the previous reviews did not explore the use of theory, as well as mechanisms of change (intervention functions) and active units of change (behaviour change techniques). The aim of this review was to explore these factors and ascertain how, if at all, these contribute to SDM. Five databases were searched up until April 2020. Studies met inclusion criteria if they were: (a) an intervention to facilitate SDM; (b) aimed at children, adolescence, or young people aged up to 25, with a mental health difficulty, or their parents/guardians; and (c) included a control group. Data were extracted on patient characteristics, study design, intervention, theoretical background, intervention functions, behaviour change techniques, and SDM. Quality assessment of the studies was undertaken using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool. Eight different interventions met inclusion criteria. The role of theory to increase SDM remains unclear. Specific intervention functions, such as 'education' on SDM and treatment options and 'environmental restructuring' using decision aids, are being used in SDM interventions, as well as 'training' for clinicians. Similarly, behaviour change techniques linked to these, such as 'adding objects to the environment', 'discussing pros/cons', and clinicians engaging in 'behavioural practice/rehearsal'. However, as most studies scored low on the quality assessment criteria, as well as a small number of studies included and a low number of behaviour change techniques utilised, links between behaviour change techniques, intervention functions and increased participation remain tentative. Intervention developers and clinicians may wish to consider specific intervention functions and behaviour change techniques to facilitate SDM.

摘要

本研究旨在探讨这些因素,并确定这些因素是否以及如何促进共享决策(SDM)。本研究检索了截至 2020 年 4 月的五个数据库。如果研究符合以下标准,则被纳入:(a)促进 SDM 的干预措施;(b)针对患有精神健康障碍的儿童、青少年或 25 岁以下的年轻人,或其父母/监护人;(c)包括对照组。研究设计、干预措施、理论背景、干预功能、行为改变技术和 SDM 等方面的数据均被提取出来。使用有效的公共卫生实践项目(EPHPP)质量评估工具对研究进行了质量评估。八项不同的干预措施符合纳入标准。提高 SDM 的理论作用仍不清楚。特定的干预功能,如 SDM 和治疗选择的“教育”以及使用决策辅助工具的“环境重构”,以及临床医生的“培训”,正在 SDM 干预中使用。同样,与这些相关的行为改变技术,如“向环境中添加对象”、“讨论利弊”以及临床医生进行“行为实践/排练”,也在使用。然而,由于大多数研究在质量评估标准上得分较低,以及纳入的研究数量较少和使用的行为改变技术数量较少,行为改变技术、干预功能和参与度增加之间的联系仍然不确定。干预措施的开发者和临床医生可能希望考虑特定的干预功能和行为改变技术,以促进 SDM。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验