Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia (Thomas, Salzer, Zisman-Ilani); Department of Social Work, University of British Columbia, Okanagan (Ben-David); Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Desert Pacific, San Diego (Treichler); Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (Treichler); Ginsburg Health Sciences Library, Temple University, Philadelphia (Roth); Division of Behavioral Health Services and Policies, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City (Dixon). Editor Emeritus Howard H. Goldman, M.D., Ph.D., served as decision editor on the manuscript.
Psychiatr Serv. 2021 Nov 1;72(11):1288-1300. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000429. Epub 2021 Aug 9.
Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model that may be particularly appealing to service users with serious mental illnesses, who often want to be involved in making decisions about their mental health care. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe and evaluate participant, intervention, methodological, and outcome characteristics of SDM intervention studies conducted within this population.
Systematic searches of the literature through April 2020 were conducted and supplemented by hand searching of reference lists of identified studies. A total of 53 independent studies of SDM interventions that were conducted with service users with serious mental illnesses and that included a quantitative or qualitative measure of the intervention were included in the review. Data were independently extracted by at least two authors.
Most studies were conducted with middle-age, male, White individuals from Western countries. Interventions fell into the following categories: decision support tools only, multicomponent interventions involving decision support tools, multicomponent interventions not involving decision support tools, and shared care planning and preference elicitation interventions. Most studies were randomized controlled trials with sufficient sample sizes. Outcomes assessed were diverse, spanning decision-making constructs, clinical and functional, treatment engagement or adherence, and other constructs.
Findings suggest important future directions for research, including the need to evaluate the impact of SDM in special populations (e.g., young adults and racial-ethnic minority groups); to expand interventions to a broader array of decisions, users, and contexts; and to establish consensus measures to assess intervention effectiveness.
共同决策(SDM)是一种健康沟通模式,可能特别吸引有严重精神疾病的服务使用者,他们通常希望参与做出与精神健康护理相关的决策。本系统综述的目的是描述和评估在该人群中进行的 SDM 干预研究的参与者、干预措施、方法学和结果特征。
通过系统搜索文献,截至 2020 年 4 月,并通过手工搜索已确定研究的参考文献进行补充。本综述共纳入了 53 项关于 SDM 干预措施的独立研究,这些研究是针对有严重精神疾病的服务使用者进行的,并包括对干预措施的定量或定性测量。数据由至少两名作者独立提取。
大多数研究都是针对来自西方国家的中年、男性、白人进行的。干预措施分为以下几类:仅决策支持工具、包含决策支持工具的多组分干预措施、不包含决策支持工具的多组分干预措施以及共同护理计划和偏好挖掘干预措施。大多数研究都是随机对照试验,样本量充足。评估的结果多种多样,涵盖决策制定结构、临床和功能、治疗参与或依从性以及其他结构。
研究结果表明,未来的研究方向非常重要,包括需要评估 SDM 在特殊人群(如年轻人和少数族裔群体)中的影响;将干预措施扩展到更广泛的决策、使用者和情境;并建立共识措施来评估干预效果。